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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–926 2006

HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 8, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

VERNON EHLERS, Chairman 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

CANDICE MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

Ranking Minority Member 

ROBERT A BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

WILL PLASTER, Staff Director 

GEORGE SHEVLIN, Minority Staff Director 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2006 

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 1310, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ehlers, Ney, Mica, Miller and 

Millender-McDonald. 

Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Counsel; Audrey Perry, Counsel; 

Peter Sloan, Clerk; Thomas Hicks, Minority Professional Staff 

Member; George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director; Janelle Hu, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Denise Mixon, Minority 

Communications Director. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today the 

House Administration Committee will come to order. I am very 

pleased to welcome some very special guests, but I would like to 

remind members of our audience here today to please silence your 

phones, which I am doing right now, and pagers and other electronic equipment which will cause interruption to the hearing, except those pagers which will caution us to vote, because if that happens, we must leave the chamber and vote. Thank you very much. 

Today the Committee convenes an important oversight hearing 

on the Election Assistance Commission, better known as the EAC. 

The EAC, which was created by the Help America Vote Act of 

2002, better known as HAVA, was established to assist the States 

in their efforts to comply with our Federal election laws. That mission will truly be put to the test this year as the upcoming midterm 

election marks the first in which the states must comply with all 

of the HAVA requirements. 

Under HAVA, states and localities must comply with Federal requirements and are provided with Federal funds to help them meet 

these problems. Over $3 billion has been appropriated and distributed to the states to help them comply with the law, a significant 

investment by any standard. 

HAVA created the EAC to distribute these funds and to provide 

guidance to the states on methods of compliance. While some of the 

HAVA requirements were in place for our last general election in 

2004, this year marks the first in which the states must comply 

with all of the HAVA requirements. In particular, several new provisions, including the voting system, disability access, and statewide registration requirements, are now in effect for the first time. 

2 

These important provisions have forced some changes to be made 

at the state and local level. Not surprisingly, some of the local officials trying to make theses changes have encountered some difficulties, which is an increasing area of concern for this Committee as 

the midterm election is now fewer than six months away. 

Many states and localities are still struggling to comply with 

HAVA prior to their primaries and the November general election 

and are looking to the EAC for assistance to ensure that they meet 

all requirements under the law. 

Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to hear from the EAC 

Commissioners about their efforts to help states and localities implement HAVA. It also gives us a chance to hear from them about 

what problems they are seeing and what is being done to solve 

them; and, of course, we are interested in knowing whether additional legislation is going to be needed to resolve some of these 

problems. 

I thank the Commissioners for joining us today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

At this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Millender-McDonald, for any opening remarks she may have. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 

and good morning to you, and good morning to this outstanding 

Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for calling this very important 

oversight hearing. It is so timely at this point as we go into midterm election. The Election Assistance Commission, EAC, was 

formed after the 2000 Presidential election through the Help America Vote Act, which is HAVA, to serve as a national clearinghouse 

for all matters involving elections administration. 

Pursuant to HAVA, the EAC has distributed billions of dollars, 

as the Chairman stated, to the States to improve the facilitation 

of elections operations. In the short period of the EAC’s existence, 

our elections have benefited from the guidance, research and standards provided by this great Commission. 

Nevertheless, improvements are still needed as we move forward. 

This is a work in progress. HAVA is proving to be a solid foundation upon which we can institute further electoral improvements. 

HAVA made it easier for voters to cast a vote and harder for people 

to knowingly commit fraud. 

But despite all of the overall success of HAVA, the 2004 elections 

revealed several high-profile failures in the system that resulted in 

a few areas we need to address. This committee held an oversight 

hearing in Ohio, where we listened to testimony and read numerous reports of voters waiting in line for more than 10 hours to cast 

a ballot and over 100,000 provisional ballots going uncounted. This 

situation should not happen in the 21st century. Airlines and TSA 

move millions of passengers a day from the curb to their final destination with fewer problems. 

Mr. Chairman, there is also a report from the Rolling Stone that 

I would like to ask to be included in the record by unanimous consent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 9 here 28926A.001
4 


Insert offset folio 10 here 28926A.002
5 


Insert offset folio 11 here 28926A.003
6 


Insert offset folio 12 here 28926A.004
7 


Insert offset folio 13 here 28926A.005
8 


Insert offset folio 14 here 28926A.006
9 


Insert offset folio 15 here 28926A.007
10 


Insert offset folio 16 here 28926A.008
11 


Insert offset folio 17 here 28926A.009
12 


Insert offset folio 18 here 28926A.010
13 


Insert offset folio 19 here 28926A.011
14 


Insert offset folio 20 here 28926A.012
15 


Insert offset folio 21 here 28926A.013
16 


Insert offset folio 22 here 28926A.014
17 


Insert offset folio 23 here 28926A.015
18 


Insert offset folio 24 here 28926A.016
19 


Insert offset folio 25 here 28926A.017
20 


Insert offset folio 26 here 28926A.018
21 


Insert offset folio 27 here 28926A.019
22 


Insert offset folio 28 here 28926A.020
23 


Insert offset folio 29 here 28926A.021
24 


Insert offset folio 30 here 28926A.022
25 


Insert offset folio 31 here 28926A.023
26 


Insert offset folio 32 here 28926A.024
27 


Insert offset folio 33 here 28926A.025
28 


Insert offset folio 34 here 28926A.026
29 


Insert offset folio 35 here 28926A.027
30 


Insert offset folio 36 here 28926A.028
31 


Insert offset folio 37 here 28926A.029
32 


Insert offset folio 38 here 28926A.030
33 


Insert offset folio 39 here 28926A.031
34 


Insert offset folio 40 here 28926A.032
35 


Insert offset folio 41 here 28926A.033
36 


Insert offset folio 42 here 28926A.034
37 


Insert offset folio 43 here 28926A.035
38 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Given some of the issues in this report, I am also interested in 

hearing how this EAC is addressing the needs for voters to cast 

ballots securely and privately? 

Furthermore, last week marked the start of the 2006 hurricane 

season, which reports indicate would possibly be even worse than 

the devastation last year. The residents of the Gulf Coast States 

witnessed entire towns and cities destroyed in the face of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In some locations these hurricanes wiped 

out the entire infrastructure necessary for the citizens to vote. It 

may be years before the Gulf States start to resemble the great 

area they were before these storms. 

Just a few days ago, several of the Gulf Coast States held Federal primaries, and I understand that some of our Commissioners 

before us today witnessed these primaries firsthand. I am very interested in hearing the Commissioners’ assessment of how States 

are handling these election difficulties in the absence of an election 

infrastructure. 

I am also greatly concerned that we have forgotten the victims 

of the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I will continue to fight for my 

legislation, H.R. 4140, the Ensuring Ballot Access to Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita Victims Act of 2005, which would authorize the 

EAC to provide up to $50 million in grants to the States affected 

by hurricanes. 

These grants are not, however, a blank check. States would have 

to submit detailed plans to EAC in order to receive funding, reestablish voter registration lists, reconstruct destroyed polling stations, make polling stations fully accessible to those with disabilities, and restore and replace supplies, materials, and equipment 

used in the administration of elections. 

Companion legislation introduced by Senator Trent Lott and 

Chris Dodd passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 9th of 

this year, and I am still waiting for the House to step up to the 

plate and do the same. 

As you recall, January 1st of 2006 marked the deadline for 

States to comply with two additional requirements of HAVA. First, 

each polling station must have at least one machine that is fully 

accessible for individuals with disabilities. States may satisfy this 

obligation with the use of a direct recording electronic voting system, DRE. 

DRE machines were looked at as the great panacea to the problems associated with the 2000 elections, but much concern continues to brew since the signing of HAVA. How is the EAC handling this situation? I am very disturbed by the news reports surrounding DRE machines and recent attempts to expand voting 

identification requirements. Are you presently working on reports 

on these topics, and when would you inform the Congress of any 

findings? 

The other requirement that went into effect requires each State’s 

chief election official to implement in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner a single uniform, interactive, official centralized 

system to handle statewide computerized voting registration list. 

This list is to be defined, maintained and administered at the State 

level, which will contain the name and registration information of 

39 

every legally registered voter in the State and assign a unique 

identifier to each legally registered voter in the State. 

I believe that if implemented correctly, this mechanism can be 

the key to cutting down on voter fraud. However, many States received waivers in 2004 for both of these important requirements. 

Are all States fully compliant with these mandates now; and if not, 

what is EAC doing to make sure the States are fully ready for the 

November elections? 

Lastly, I believe many of the problems associated with the 2004 

election could be tracked back to poor poll worker training and recruitment. For the most part volunteers run our elections for many 

long hours and on very little pay. So what are you doing to provide 

solutions to this major problem? 

We can and must work to address these problems, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and other Members to continue improving the voting process. 

I would like to place in the record a letter I wrote to the Committee on Appropriations requesting that they provide the remaining $800 million authorized by HAVA. 

[The information follows:] 

40 


Insert offset folio 48 here 28926A.036
41 


Insert offset folio 49 here 28926A.037
42 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I will persist in my efforts to seek 

full funding for EAC to continue its critical work of improving the 

electoral process. Even if one voter is disenfranchised, that is one 

voter too many. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for convening this very important 

hearing and look forward to hearing the testimony from this very 

esteemed Commission and their answers to the questions that I 

have raised. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for your statement. 

[The statement of Ms. Millender-McDonald follows:] 

43 


Insert offset folio 51 here 28926A.038
44 


Insert offset folio 52 here 28926A.039
45 

The CHAIRMAN. We have been joined by someone who could 

rightfully be called the father of HAVA, Congressman Ney, the 

gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

Sometimes children are bad and sometimes they aren’t. I think 

this child has been good. It was a pleasure actually to work with 

Steny Hoyer when the hanging chad and dimpled and pregnant 

chad came up in Florida. 

I think at first people thought the bill would just be about that, 

but it went way beyond that. We got a college program and a high 

school program because our Ranking Member had mentioned about 

voter education, and actually that is going to be a great way to 

help with this. 

Then it went—of course, the bill came from the Senate with Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell and Senator Bond as the main 

principals. Some, I think, very thoughtful provisions were added, 

and the rest is history. 

I think the Congress voting for this also can be very proud. For 

the first time in many people’s lives, the blind are able to vote in 

privacy. And I know I have had a lot of calls from people that have 

said that they were able to cast their first vote. 

But HAVA was a complicated bill. It took a long time to do. One 

of the main components of it is the EAC. Of course, that is why 

you are here, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for 

having the hearing today. 

I did want to mention, I was a little bit late in coming, but we 

did have a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, and Wisconsin. I thought 

the hearing in Columbus was a very good hearing because it 

showed a lot about the Federal end of it with the EAC, and we 

never attempted to federalize it, but it also showed how HAVA was 

going to be carried out within a State and other States that we 

looked at. 

So I am not going to take a lot of time to read a statement; I 

will put it in without objection, Mr. Chairman, for the record, because I want to hear what you have to say, and also in the area 

of the security, because there is a lack of consensus among election 

officials, very interested in provisional voting. Provisional voting 

that we all agreed in the House and Senate on I think is a very 

good way to stop disenfranchisement of people as they go to vote. 

We had a couple of cases, in fact, in my district where somebody 

went in to vote, and they said, you already voted; and the young 

man insisted, I didn’t; and they had a provisional ballot, ended up 

his vote was counted. Now, had that not happened with HAVA and 

the provisional voting, that young man might have been turned 

away from the polls. This was a huge thing. 

There is a lot of issues, as you know. The other thing that is 

frustrating, I worked with Congressman Hoyer, the Chairman and 

Ranking Member and Speaker—or Leader Pelosi. If we can get 

that remaining amount of money—we funded about 3 billion, which 

is great, but we need to get that remaining amount of money into 

this bill. 

With that, I appreciate all of you being here, appreciate the job. 

You have made history as the first EAC, the first elections commission in the country, and so I credit you for getting up and running 

46 

as fast as you did, and I know without going into a lot of details 

the money didn’t immediately flow for you. It wasn’t made the easiest maybe by the Congress. So thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ney. 

Any other opening statements will be entered into the record 

without objections. So ordered. 

We will now commence with testimony from our panel of witnesses; first, Paul S. DeGregorio, Chairman of the Election Assistance Commission. The other names will not be in order of testimony, but some other order: Ray Martinez, III, Vice Chairman; 

Donetta L. Davidson, Commissioner of the Election Assistance 

Commission; and Gracia M. Hillman, Commissioner of the Election 

Assistance Commission. 

We will first turn to Mr. DeGregorio for his testimony. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes. I assume you are experienced enough to 

know our clock system. The green means go, go, go. The yellow 

means get ready to stop. The red means stop. Then the trap door 

opens if you go beyond that. 

So with that, we recognize you, Mr. DeGregorio. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL S. DeGREGORIO, CHAIRMAN, ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ranking 

Member and Congressman Ney. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission is pleased to be here to discuss the broad changes in the 

election administration process that have been effectuated by the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002, and, more specifically, the EAC’s 

role in supporting State and local governments to implement 

HAVA reforms. 

In our testimony we will review the new election administration 

requirements imposed by HAVA, the efforts of election administrators nationwide to implement those changes, and what Americans 

can expect from the 2006 Federal elections. 

Although the EAC is amongst the smallest of independent Federal Commissions, it may have the greatest impact on the largest 

number of persons. The changes that the Commission has helped 

State and local governments make will affect every voter in this 

country. We appreciate the vested interest that this Committee has 

in our work and the support we have received. 

2006 is a year of changes, challenges and progress in election reform and HAVA implementation. An estimated one in three voters 

will use new voting devices this year. Just this past Tuesday, eight 

States conducted their Federal primary elections, and in most of 

those States new voting devices were used for the first time by millions of voters. 

In all of the 2006 primaries and in the November general election to come, we know that because of HAVA, these new voting systems will empower voters to verify choices, change their selection, 

and be notified in the event of an overvote. 

This year many Americans with disabilities will vote privately 

and independently for the very first time. I have witnessed this on 

many occasions, and it is truly an inspirational event. 

This year many States are using a statewide voter registration 

database for the first time as required by HAVA. These lists will 

47 

result in cleaner voter rolls, facilitating the prevention of voter 

fraud, and reducing the need for provisional balloting. 

These are just two concrete examples of the progress being made 

towards upgrading the nation’s voting systems and how some of 

the 3.1 billion in HAVA dollars has been spent. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has experienced more election 

administration reform in the past 5 years than at any period in its 

history. We see new technology, improved procedures and greater 

access to the polls. However, the road to implement reform has not 

always been easy. All this change has meant great challenges for 

election officials and voter advocates. 

The task of recruiting, training and retaining poll workers and 

educating voters on new systems has never been harder, but we 

have learned a lot over the past few years. We know that most residual problems are the result of human error, and, fortunately, 

these problems can be mitigated through improved management 

practices. 

As you will learn from my colleagues, the EAC is working hard 

to assist State and local officials. Not only can we offer our own 

sound practice guidelines, but we are sharing important data collected during HAVA-mandated research through our clearinghouse 

function. 

All of these efforts will help State and local officials nationwide 

improve election administration no matter how unique their situation. 

I am particularly proud of the important role the EAC has played 

in helping the States whose election processes were severely disrupted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Soon after the extent of 

the damage was known, we brought State and local officials in the 

Gulf Region together with Federal authorities and fellow local election officials who experienced similar disasters. These meetings 

proved to be very beneficial, and we are anticipating a successful 

2006 general election in the region. 

I believe the EAC has proven the significant part it can play in 

helping State and local election officials respond to various challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to report that the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines were issued in December 2005 within the 

HAVA-mandated 9-month deadline. They provide for greater security and usability of election systems. We are already working with 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology on future 

iterations. 

In addition to our continuing advisory role to local election officials, the EAC is focused on two important projects in 2006. Our 

top priority is to establish a thorough, rigorous and transparent 

voting system certification program, and we are working closely 

with NIST to do so. 

Recognizing that the $3.1 billion in HAVA funds are already distributed and need to be accounted for, our Inspector General has 

an active audit and monitoring program underway. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to serve on this 

Commission with these three distinguished Americans. They will 

now share with you more information on the work of the EAC, and 

I will turn to Commissioner Hillman for further remarks. 

48 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. DeGregorio follows:] 

49 


Insert graphic folio 63 here 28926A.040
50 


Insert graphic folio 64 here 28926A.041
51 


Insert graphic folio 65 here 28926A.042
52 


Insert graphic folio 66 here 28926A.043
53 


Insert graphic folio 67 here 28926A.044
54 


Insert graphic folio 68 here 28926A.045
55 


Insert graphic folio 69 here 28926A.046
56 


Insert graphic folio 70 here 28926A.047
57 


Insert graphic folio 71 here 28926A.048
58 


Insert graphic folio 72 here 28926A.049
59 


Insert graphic folio 73 here 28926A.050
60 


Insert graphic folio 74 here 28926A.051
61 


Insert graphic folio 75 here 28926A.052
62 


Insert graphic folio 76 here 28926A.053
63 


Insert graphic folio 77 here 28926A.054
64 

The CHAIRMAN. I am pleased to recognize Commissioner 

Hillman. 

STATEMENT OF GRACIA M. HILLMAN, COMMISSIONER, 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Ms. HILLMAN. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is your microphone on? 

Ms. HILLMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Ranking Member and Mr. Ney. My name is Gracia Hillman. I have had 

the privilege of serving on the Election Assistance Commission 

since it was first appointed in December 2003. It is a pleasure to 

appear before you this morning. 

Under section 202 of the Help America Vote Act, EAC is assigned 

the duty of serving as a national clearinghouse. We provide information on a number of issues concerning the administration of 

Federal elections. To that end, EAC has undertaken several activities to fulfill this responsibility. 

We have set up the EAC Website to be a national resource. Our 

Website is easily accessible at www.EAC.gov. It serves as a tool for 

State and local election administrators, academics, advocates, practitioners, and voters in search of information about election administration. 

Additionally, EAC.gov contains information about the structure, 

work and decisions of this Commission. Our Website will soon contain a legal resources clearinghouse. Election administrators tell us 

that this will be a valuable resource. 

We are constructing a searchable database that will contain statutes, rules, regulations and court decisions about election administration. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, HAVA directs EAC to undertake a 

number of studies and to conduct research. Through this work we 

produce data, best practices, guidance and guidelines for use by the 

States and local jurisdictions. 

As you might imagine, our work is guided in large part by HAVA 

deadlines and Federal election cycles. EAC has limited resources, 

but we maximize them by prioritizing our work. We also strive to 

provide information that will be timely to the needs of election administrators. 

Our first priorities over the past 18 months have been to study 

topics that are most relevant to HAVA timelines. The issues we 

study are covered primarily in HAVA titles 2 and 3. Current study 

topics are covered on pages 12 and 13 of our written testimony and 

include the following issues: improved data collection to help quantify voter registration and turnout, catalog the types of voting systems that are being used, and illuminate the many other complex 

aspects of administering elections. 

We are examining effective designs for ballots and polling place 

signage to help provide clear information for the voter. We are researching public access portals to identify effective and efficient 

ways for election administrators to disseminate critical information 

to voters, and we are compiling best practices for the recruitment 

and training of poll workers, including college students. 

65 

Communities throughout America depend on a volunteer poll 

worker to be its champion of democracy on election day. The recruitment and training of poll workers are costly and time-consuming activities, but critically important to help America vote. 

EAC is fortunate to have a wealth of expertise available to help 

inform our research and studies. We work with the EAC board of 

advisors to prioritize the order of study topics. The early stages of 

our research are informed by working groups. These groups include 

State and local election officials; academics; other experts who 

study, follow and advocate election issues; and, of course, our Federal agency partners. 

The EAC advisory and standards boards provide critical review 

of our documents as they are being developed, and our work is further informed by expert testimony at our meetings and hearings. 

Also informative are the hundreds of comments that we receive 

from the public. 

We have a highly talented, but very small staff; therefore, we frequently use outside consultants to conduct the studies through the 

appropriate processes as regulated by the Federal Government. 

Our reports are issued in a variety of formats, including hard copy 

and digital. 

Our Nation’s election administrators also have very small budgets and staff in comparison to the enormity of their tasks and responsibilities. They simply do not have the resources to research 

and study their own practices and procedures. Congress wisely recognized under HAVA that information is a necessary tool for effective administration. 

I will be pleased to answer your questions and provide any additional information you may need, and I now turn to Commissioner 

Davidson to discuss our work to improve voting systems. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, and I am pleased 

to recognize Commissioner Davidson. 

STATEMENT OF DONETTA L. DAVIDSON, COMMISSIONER, 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking 

Member, and Congressman Ney. My name is Donetta Davidson, 

and it is an honor to serve as a member of the EAC. I was appointed in August of 2005. 

As a former secretary of state, I can tell you firsthand how important it is to have credible guidelines when purchasing a voting 

system. My State, like many other States, relied on this certification program. 

Serving as a TDGC member, which is the Technical Development 

Guidelines Committee which directs NIST in developing the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, really was an add in my career 

before I became a member. 

The guidelines were adopted in December of 2005. The public involvement in this was a priority to the EAC. We had 3 meetings 

throughout the United States, received more than 6,000 comments 

in a 90-day period, and NIST worked with us side by side on reviewing all of those comments. 

The guidelines must always keep up with technology. The first 

priority was to focus on security, making sure that the voting sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:13 Sep 07, 2006 Jkt 028926 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B926.XXX B926
66 

tems are accurate and reliable. Examples include expanding the requirements of results transmitted at night after the election. We 

added wireless requirements, and also added VVPAT requirements 

for States that require it. 

But that is not enough. We also took into consideration the needs 

of all voters and what they experienced when they used the voting 

system. For the first time we included a usability section in the 

standards which addresses the needs of the disabled community. 

For instance, the vendors will have to conduct a usability test. 

They establish a minimum font size. There is also a navigation control that allows a voter to move forward to a race or back up to 

a previous or past race before they cast their ballot. It increased 

accessibility requirements from 29 to 120. 

Future iterations are being developed in conjunction with NIST. 

We are addressing security, obviously, in more depth, wireless 

technology, identifying more forms of independent verification and 

usability benchmarks and test protocols for the labs. 

The voting system certification program is our top priority for 

2006. NVLAP, which is the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, is already performing test lab evaluations. Our 

program will be rigorous, thorough, and it will be transparent to 

the public. The quality control will be added that has never been 

there in place before. Field monitoring, and also the vendors will 

have to register. 

The Nation is looking to us for leadership, and we will provide 

it. I thank you very much, and I would be more than welcome to 

answer any questions you may have. And now I would like to turn 

it over to our Vice Chairman Mr. Martinez. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your comments. I will recognize 

Mr. Martinez. 

STATEMENT OF RAY MARTINEZ, III, VICE CHAIRMAN, 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Millender-McDonald, and members of this committee. I am Ray 

Martinez. I currently serve as Vice Chair of the EAC. 

Let me briefly address two additional areas where the EAC has 

made significant progress in implementing HAVA. First is through 

the issuance of voluntary guidance. As you know, HAVA contains 

several technology and administration requirements that must be 

implemented by every State. These requirements include, among 

other things, voting system standards for all touch-screen and optical-scan voting systems, a requirement for at least one accessible 

voting system per polling place which would allow persons with 

disabilities the opportunity to vote privately and independently, the 

implementation of provisional voting, and development of statewide 

voter registration bases. Where any ambiguity exists, the EAC is 

mandated to issue voluntary guidance to assist States in meeting 

these important requirements. 

The EAC has met this responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in the following ways. In July 2005, the EAC issued its first set of voluntary 

guidance to assist States in developing their statewide voter registration databases. This important requirement, designed by Congress with the dual goal of improving accuracy of voting lists while 

67 

also reducing the possibility of fraud, has been a particularly difficult requirement for many States to implement. 

Some States such as Michigan and Kentucky have served as national models for such a system, and yet most States had no such 

database in place when HAVA was passed. So the EAC has worked 

diligently by seeking broad public input to provide interpretative 

guidance as well as technical assistance through an ongoing partnership with the National Academy of Science. 

Additionally, the EAC has issued other voluntarily interpretative 

opinions to assist States in meeting their obligations, including 

opinions on the use of lever machines, matters involving the conditioning of provisional ballots to voter identification requirements, 

and an important analysis regarding the differences between the 

voluntary voting system standards promulgated by the FEC in 

early 2002 and the standards that are mandated by the plain language of HAVA. 

Second is our efforts to assist States. While HAVA requires the 

distribution of unprecedented Federal funds to all States, these 

funds are to be used not only to improve voting system technology, 

but also to broadly address the people aspect of election administration. 

In order to facilitate this, the EAC is developing voluntary management guidelines referred to earlier by our Chairman which will 

offer a vast array of information and best practices dealing with 

nearly every phase of election administration, including poll worker 

training and voter education; protocols on security of electronic voting systems; and prudent practices for procurement, setup and 

storage of voting systems. 

Finally, since HAVA represents both an unprecedented and significant financial commitment by Congress to improve the administration of Federal elections, it is imperative that the EAC conduct 

its due diligence in assisting States to use these important new 

Federal funds for their intended purposes. 

We are doing so by working on a daily basis with State and local 

jurisdictions to answer their numerous questions on the use of 

HAVA funds, and, when necessary, issuing advisories to inform all 

jurisdictions of our decisions. 

Additionally, the EAC staff has traveled extensively to various 

conferences throughout the country to conduct training and information sessions in order to directly inform election administrators 

and answer their questions. 

Moreover, now that all appropriate HAVA funds have been fully 

distributed by the EAC, we have implemented an audit program 

through the establishment of an Office of Inspector General at the 

EAC. Since the establishment of this office, Mr. Chairman, the 

EAC’s inspector general has moved assertively to begin regular 

oversight activities based upon objective criteria such as the expenditure of HAVA funds. 

Additionally, when allegations were raised in 2004 about the possible inappropriate use and mismanagement of HAVA funds by 

now a former secretary of state, the EAC initiated a special audit 

that has resulted in a determination of repayment of some $3 million. 

68 

Clearly we have come a long way in a short period of time. As 

the process of election administration becomes more complex and 

thus more challenging upon State and local administrators, election 

administrators, it is all the more imperative that the EAC diligently stick to the important task it was assigned in HAVA. 

We are doing just that, Mr. Chairman, and, in my view, with 

each passing month and year, the EAC is becoming an important 

and an increasingly valued partner in the process of election administration. 

With that, I know that we are all prepared to answer your specific questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank all the Commissioners for their excellent 

testimony. It is a very good overview, and we appreciate that. 

I will begin the questioning. First of all, I would like to, since I 

am the one who was involved in writing the technical part of it, 

and I happen to be a scientist—I am very interested, Commissioner 

Davidson, you mentioned the work with NIST. I assume NIST was 

very cooperative in this; is that correct? Were they helpful? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. They were very helpful and continue to be very helpful in our new process. Even in the 

certification of our voting labs that we are going to have, they have 

been very helpful in that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you explain, with the certification process 

that has been set up—and I agree with you, it has been a good one. 

We just read in the papers last week about Diebold having a great 

vulnerability, and I knew there would be vulnerabilities. That is 

not a crime to have a vulnerability. But to have such an obvious 

and simple one was surprising. Did that sneak through, or was 

that particular model certified at this point? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. The equipment was certified in the past by 

NASED. Our program, we feel, will be far more vigorous. Whether 

something like that would have been caught, I am not certain, to 

be really honest with you, and that is very important to me. 

One of the things we must remember, when that was found, the 

individual was let into the office, and they had access to the software and everything to be able to do that. It wasn’t somebody from 

the outside being able to go in, so it is a little bit different. 

There has got to be security from the front end of the system all 

the way through. The systems need to be secure, but operation for 

the counties and what they do within their election setup and the 

whole process must be secure as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask also about the human factors, which 

I pushed very hard to have that included as part of the requirements. Are you satisfied that the human factors were dealt with 

appropriately? Let me just explain my concern. 

For years I have heard that we just have to train the poll workers better, or we just have to train the voters better, and I have 

always said that is just utter nonsense. This is a task that they do, 

in the case of the voters, a couple times a year; in the case of the 

poll workers, maybe four times a year. You can’t expect people to 

remember that much from one session to the other. 

I felt the equipment and the procedures should all be designed 

in such a way to take account of that and take care of all the 

69 

human factors so no one has to be trained. It is so elementary that 

anyone can do it without error. 

Has that goal been achieved at all in this whole certification 

process and the design and testing and so forth? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. It is being worked on. We increased it from 29 to 

120. We feel like we have made a very good start at that. But right 

now what they have done to meet the VVPAT, for instance, they 

have attached that paper printer on the side of the equipment, and 

that is not usable to the judges. I will be very honest with you, the 

judges are having issues with that and having trouble being able 

to get it attached and working properly. That is one of the issues 

that we really see. So in our next iteration that will be one area 

that we are really looking into. We improved human factors, but 

not enough. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I am pleased to hear your comment, because that was my impression. If you are saying everything was 

okay, I would be worried. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. It is not okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your honesty in that. 

Similarly, the question of fraud. It has amazed me since I got to 

the Congress and came to this Committee and have dealt with contested case elections and also the elections across the country, what 

has amazed me is both the extent of fraud, and, second, the opportunities that are available for fraud. 

Do you think that through this whole certification process, the 

whole complete review you have done, that we have minimized— 

I know we can’t eliminate it at this point, but have we minimized 

fraud opportunities? Anyone may answer that. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Mr. Chairman, I think that the implementation of the statewide voter registration database from the part of 

giving people opportunities for fraud will be helpful to eliminate 

duplicate names and opportunities that people have had to commit 

fraud. 

There are certain other areas that I think will be helpful that the 

States have taken themselves to require other requirements, and 

also in their own way that they look at this whole process to make 

sure that not just the voter registration process is one that is secure, but that the voting devices can’t be tampered with. 

In the voting system itself, when you take it as a whole, there 

are different opportunities where people can come in and commit 

some kind of fraud against the system, but I think it is a process 

that has to be looked at in total, and I think there are steps being 

taken, but clearly there is more work to be done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Commissioner Hillman. 

Ms. HILLMAN. I would just add that the issue of voter fraud and 

voter intimidation are among the items that Congress has asked 

the Election Assistance Commission to look into, and we have 

begun that. One of the first tasks is to arrive at a common understanding and definition when people talk about voter fraud. There 

is manipulation of equipment, which may not be something that 

the voters have access to. There is the issue of perhaps registering 

to vote if one is not qualified to do so. 

There aren’t a lot of reports that quantify this, even when you 

look at the instances of situations that have been reported by elecVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:13 Sep 07, 2006 Jkt 028926 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B926.XXX B926
70 

tion administrators to prosecuting officials. Officials believe it is 

very difficult to prosecute. 

So we will be wrapping our arms around this to try to identify 

the points where there are weaknesses, look at the things that 

HAVA already provides to take care of those, then look at things 

that may need to be done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other comments? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could. I would echo, obviously, 

the things that my colleagues have put forth, but I would also say 

that HAVA represents that delicate balance of trying to achieve the 

twin goals of both minimizing fraud, Mr. Chairman, and also improving access to the polls. 

I think the broad-brush answer, if you will, to your important 

question is that as we diligently make efforts as we have outlined 

to implement the important provisions of HAVA, all the requirements, bells and whistles for voting systems, voter information requirements, statewide databases, and the voter ID requirements, 

all of that was delicately crafted by Congressman Ney and his colleagues, who are indeed regarded as the authors of HAVA, and it 

was delicately balanced with the twin goals in mind. 

I think as we stick to the implementation of this law, we are 

going to achieve, I hope, that particular goal. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. Let me just say one area 

I am still very worried about because of the lack of expertise of average Americans in dealing with computers, it is remarkably easy 

to hack into a computer and change things. I still want to keep an 

eye on the safeguards that are being developed to prevent that 

from happening. 

My time has expired. I am pleased to recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentlelady from California, for her questions. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me echo the visionary eye and tenacity of Mr. Ney and Mr. 

Hoyer in bringing about HAVA. It is just an incredible piece of legislation. We have been able to build on it and improve upon it, so 

we are so grateful to have you here this morning and the work that 

the two of you have done in bringing about HAVA. 

This outstanding panel today, as I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, is superb in their testimony, and you are not just valuable, 

you are invaluable. You have said some things that are really just 

more encouraging than what has been said in the past, and you 

have brought in some concepts that I just want you to elaborate on. 

First, Mr. Chairman, you talked about the eight States that had 

primaries this past Tuesday, and, of course, California was one of 

those. I was quite concerned about the voter turnout, it was so dismal, and while there are some things you can’t do—but I was wondering if you have thought about anything that we can do to improve upon voter participation and voter turnout. 

You also spoke about States that are in compliance with the 

building of the statewide database and registered lists. Can you tell 

me those States that are not in compliance at this point? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Thank you, Congresswoman Millender-McDonald. 

First of all, on the turnout, I have been in the election administration business for 20 years. I served as Director of Elections in 

71 

St. Louis County, Missouri, for 8 years where we had municipal 

elections, and the turnout was 15 to 20 percent on average, and 

that is a dismal participation rate. I know that in the State of California, in your election you had Tuesday, I spoke with Connie 

McCormack yesterday, and she lamented the fact that the turnout 

was so low. 

I think from the EAC’s viewpoint we certainly have always 

talked about encouraging Americans to participate in the election 

process, and what we do every day is to make sure that voters have 

trust and confidence in the election process, so that is not a barrier 

or reason for them not to participate. 

Election turnouts depend many times on competition of the political parties and the candidates involved, but we try to do what we 

can, and certainly we talk to election officials around the country 

to encourage voter education and other methods to encourage voters to participate. 

It is a continuing problem in the country. We recognize that. 

I am sorry, your other question? 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Any States that are not in compliance? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. First of all, let me just state for the record 

that the Department of Justice has jurisdiction to sue States or to 

bring them in compliance through legal action. With that said, as 

you indicated, most States are in compliance with statewide databases. We recognize that there are some States that are not. New 

York State was sued by the Department of Justice recently because 

they were not in compliance. We know other States are working 

very hard to become compliment. Illinois, for one, is not there yet, 

but will be, they indicate, by the November election. 

This has been a difficult process for many States that waited to 

get this done, but we recognize that it is an important process, and 

we have provided guidance and guidelines to those States to help 

them get that process completed. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Excellent. The Chairman has already, I think, exhausted the information about the voter certification program, but that is another good concept and good provision that you spoke about this morning. 

Ms. Hillman, you spoke about something that is very dear to me. 

First of all, I think the Website, I think, is an incredibly good component to have, but within that construct you talked about bringing 

in this legal concept, and that is very good because when we were 

in Ohio, it seemed at the last minute they trumped Federal law to 

come in with some State law that just really did a topsy-turvy to 

some of the outcomes. 

Can you expound on your legal—the legal provisions there and 

how that will help us in bringing best practices for the public to 

access through the Website? 

Ms. HILLMAN. Certainly. Specifically on the legal resources clearinghouse, election officials across the country have told us that it 

requires a lot of time, and they don’t have the research staff or 

sometimes even the size legal staff to look into the many issues 

they need to research before coming up with a recommendation on 

taking action. And so it is our intent to provide one-stop shopping, 

if you will, and it will include Federal and State court decisions so 

72 

that people can then go and search a particular topic to see what 

decisions have already been rendered. 

If I might just take a moment on your voter turnout question, 

there are things within the Help America Vote Act that the Election Assistance Commission will look into with respect to innovative ideas to see would it make a difference if voting were on a different day other than the Tuesday date that has been selected; 

would weekend voting matter. Some States are looking at early 

voting, does early voting help, because people are sort of caught between not being able to get to a particular place within particular 

hours to vote. 

So there are some things that are going in the country to try to 

identify real barriers to participation. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is excellent. While I see the 

light on, some of those other things that you all have mentioned— 

and welcome, Ms. Davidson, to the Commission. You are such an 

asset to us on this Commission. You and Mr. Martinez talked about 

voluntary guidance. I think that is just so extremely critical and 

very important. 

You talked about quality control. Those are great things that we 

put in place, that you are putting in place, that I think will only 

be a further asset in improving upon what you have already started. 

And then the audit program and the inspector general, I can’t 

say enough, as I look at this red light before me here, but those 

are great innovative provisions and concepts that you have brought 

to bear that, to me, helps to improve HAVA and helps to improve, 

or helped to improve, voter participation, oversight, just all of those 

things that are so critical in providing the type of program and the 

type of voter participation that we want. 

So those are but a few things that I have heard that I am just 

very encouraged by and further will talk to you on my next round 

of questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

We recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ney. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Whoever wants to answer these, not necessarily looking for an 

answer from each Commissioner, but I want to know what is the 

fiscal year 2007 request for financial and human resources? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. I believe it is $17.1 million, of which I think 

our request was more than that, but recently the House Appropriations Committee just approved $17.1 million for our 2007 fiscal 

year. 

Mr. NEY. Approps committee marked that up then? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Yes, they did. 

Mr. NEY. What do you need to successfully complete the mission 

that you have got within the legislation? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Our request and the approval includes a $2.2 

million increase that will go to NIST. Right now in each of our fiscal years, the last 2 fiscal years, we have given $2.8 million to 

NIST to work on voluntary voting system guidelines. With the advent of our certification program and the next generation of these 

guidelines, we felt it was necessary to really focus on this techVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:13 Sep 07, 2006 Jkt 028926 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B926.XXX B926
73 

nology and on the certification program because people are looking 

to us, we recognize, particularly the States are looking to us in the 

certification process to really make sure that it is transparent, 

make sure that it is a process that people can have confidence in. 

So, Mr. Ney, we are investing that for the next fiscal year. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Could I add something? I would like to add that 

one thing that we have just realized, and I don’t know if I really 

should be bringing it up here or not, but it really surprised me 

from State government to Federal Government, I guess, I am in the 

learning process, but I realize that in our cap of 23 employees, that 

our college interns fall underneath that cap, and then also the 

other item that falls under it is personal services that we contract 

with, and so that has put a restraint on us. When you were asking 

what do we need, that to me would be some help; if there were 

some way or another to say FTE means full-time, and our full-time 

people would only fit into that 23. That would be a great deal of 

help, something in that area. 

Mr. NEY. Also really the interns shouldn’t count in that because 

the other point I think you probably encounter, as we do here, interns come from different educational backgrounds, they add something because they have usually interest in wherever they are 

working, so that counts against you then, the interns do. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. That is correct. 

Mr. NEY. Otherwise you would have to not have any interns, 

which is not good for the system, not good for the people trying to 

do that. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Surprising how those interns have gotten involved with elections and how much they want to give to the process in the future. They really have gotten involved in it. 

Mr. NEY. Where was that cap put on at? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. I believe it was put on in the appropriations 

of the last 2 fiscal years. It went to 23 from 19 from the year before, but it is put on in the appropriations process. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

Ms. HILLMAN. Mr. Ney, if I could add a footnote on that and appreciate your interest. The EAC staff has been working with the 

staff of the Appropriations Committee to clarify what the intent 

was; did it mean 23 full-time permanent employees, or did it really 

mean the government definition of full-time equivalent? That is 

sort of the key to the dilemma. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you. 

Any comments on military voting? We went over and over this 

in the conference committee, and when we put the bill through, 

and then the Defense Department came forth and said we will 

have this test program, and that all fell apart. There has been 

some other ideas, I guess. Any comments on how you have been 

dealing with military voting? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Mr. Ney, we issued a report earlier this year 

on military and overseas voters, and the report indicated that election officials across the country are not collecting the data that is 

required under HAVA. They are supposed to tell us how many ballots have been sent to military and overseas voters and how many 

come back, but we are not getting that data. We feel that in 2006 

we will. 

74 

We are doing a study this year and looking at a pilot project in 

several places throughout the country that will be sending ballots 

electronically using the Internet to voters overseas who will return 

them by Postal Service or physical means, but at least one part of 

the equation will be using the Internet to send ballots. We think 

that will help our military men and women and overseas voters get 

their ballots back sooner. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica 

Mr. MICA. A couple of quick questions. How much does all this 

cost? What is your total budget? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Our total budget request for 2007, fiscal year 2007, is $17 million. Right now our appropriation is just under $15 

million for fiscal year 2006. So it is not a large budget, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Fifteen million. How many people do you employ? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. He we have a cap of 23 FTEs right now. 

Mr. MICA. How much is spent for salaries, and how much is expended otherwise? What is your personnel budget? Twenty-three 

FTEs. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Right. Our personnel costs run around $3 mil- lion; less than $3 million. Most of our funding is going—2.8 million 

is going to NIST. We also have research projects— 

Mr. MICA. How much on research projects? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. We spend approximately $2.3 million in research in fiscal year 2006. 

Mr. MICA. How do you decide who gets those? Competitive? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. They are competitive bids, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have a sunset provision? Do you have to come 

back every time for funding? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. We come back every year for funding to the 

Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. MICA. They don’t exist forever. It is just an annual authorization, or do they have an authorization? 

I want to figure out how we can get rid of you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Both good news and bad news. Basically, the authorization will expire, but just as with the FEC, it will continue 

with appropriations, and the Appropriations Committee will each 

year authorize for one year. 

Mr. MICA. They probably do some good things, but we have to 

look at areas where we can eliminate programs that may not be 

that useful. 

I have some concerns about noncitizen voting. I understand when 

Arizona passed a resolution that required citizens to produce proof 

of citizenship prior to registering to vote, when the Secretary of 

State requested reference to this requirement in instructions that 

accompany the Federal registration form, she was advised by your 

group that such a requirement would conflict with the National 

Voter Registration Act. Is that correct, and do we need to change 

the law? 

One of the most important things is making certain that people— 

that the voting process and integrity of the voting process is maintained, and also that the people who are voting are actually people 

who they say they are. 

Who wants to shoot? 

75 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to jump in. I am Ray Martinez, Vice 

Chair. 

You are correct, Arizona did ask for a change to the State’s specific instructions on the national voter registration mail-in form. 

Our agency issued a letter to the State of Arizona probably a couple of months ago, and what we did is to consider the plain language of the National Voter Registration Act as passed by Congress 

back in 1993, which mandates very clearly, Congressman, that the 

national mail-in voter registration form has to be both used and accepted by every State in the country. 

So we looked first to the plain language of the statute and tried 

to make an informed determination as to Arizona’s request. Where 

there was any ambiguity, we also looked to legislative history. And 

in looking at that history of the National Voter Registration Act, 

there also happened to have been back in 1993 when it was being 

passed by Congress a specific provision which would have allowed 

States to request documentary proof of citizenship at the point of 

registration. That particular amendment was stripped by the conference committee that put forth the final version of the National 

Voter Registration Act. 

Mr. MICA. So it is your opinion you would need to amend the National Voter Registration Act, I guess. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Our opinion is through the regulatory process we 

don’t have the authority to grant Arizona’s request; certainly the 

United States Congress does. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have any other way to suggest that we keep 

noncitizens from voting? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Obviously HAVA required, for example, a citizenship box to be placed in the national voter registration form. That 

was done by the FEC prior to the creation of this Commission. So 

there is now an explicit question on the registration form that says, 

are you a citizen. 

NVRA back in 1993 increased the penalties, Congressman, for 

providing false information and made stricter penalties for those 

who provide such false information. So I think we have to continue 

to look for ways—— 

Mr. MICA. Finally, would your Commission recommend to us that 

we amend the NVRA so that we can make certain that presentation of proof of citizenship is required? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I think that our Commission—— 

Mr. MICA. Are you all here? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir, we are all here. 

Mr. MICA. Let us have a vote. How many in favor? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I would like to add something, if it would be 

okay. 

Mr. MICA. Go ahead. My time is up, I think, but you go ahead. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. The one thing I think that we have noticed in our 

research is that in comparing our list, HAVA asked us to compare 

lists with the driver’s license, but you can get a driver’s license in 

many, many States and don’t have to be a citizen. Also, when we 

tried to compare our list to the INS, we are not able to get ahold 

of that list. 

76 

So that is one of the areas if you are looking at changing laws, 

that we look at that type of list, it would be very helpful, I would 

think. 

Mr. MICA. How about the vote? How do you all feel? Ready to 

vote to ask us to change the law? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. I can tell you what we did in the past in Colorado. That is only one person. We act as a board, and we have not 

taken steps to tell people in any area how we feel, but I can tell 

you—— 

Mr. MICA. I mean, the opinion of the board, should we change 

the law? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Congressman, I think that we have an obligation 

to look at every means and the least onerous means to be able to 

achieve the laudable objectives that certainly are trying to be 

achieved by the good people of Arizona. I cannot give you an opinion right now as to whether amending NVRA to allow this is the 

least onerous means to achieve citizenship verification, but speaking for myself, I will be happy to continue to look at this. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Will the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Let me just 

insert that we are investigating the legislative possibilities on this 

matter. 

Mr. MICA. I would love to hear their opinion. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. They can only recommend, Mr. 

MICA. 

Mr. MICA. I know. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry I was a little late. I didn’t hear all your testimony. 

I was at another committee where they were marking up some legislation. 

I want to welcome you all to the committee. I have had a chance 

to talk to each of you, and particularly my former colleague Mrs. 

Davidson from Colorado, both of us former secretaries of state. 

I might pick up a little bit on what Representative Mica was 

talking about because it has been interesting following this issue 

in Arizona about citizenship, et cetera, and one of you commented 

about States that can give driver’s licenses out to known illegal 

aliens. 

In Michigan, unfortunately, we are one of those States. There are 

actually 10 States in the Nation that continue to do that, give out 

driver’s licenses to known illegal aliens. 

The reason I am bringing that up is because we have subsequently passed, the Federal Government has passed, now a piece 

of legislation called the Real ID Act, which will no longer allow 

States to do that. They have about a 3-year window to stop doing 

that. 

However, in Michigan, and sort of a roundabout way, I am not 

sure if you are familiar with this piece of legislation or you have 

any comment, we have a piece of legislation in our statehouse 

which would require a person’s citizenship be disclosed on his or 

her driver’s license. 

77 

It all sort of falls into this Real ID Act, and our qualified voter 

file in Michigan is peopled off of our driver file, which is why I 

think there is a little bit of a hook here as well. 

Also, because in 2008, anybody crossing either border, the southern or northern border of our Nation, will be required to have a 

passport or some further documentation, more than your driver’s license, to be able to cross. Do you have any comment—I don’t know 

if you are familiar with that legislation in Michigan. What is happening in Arizona is not inherent to there, it is illegal immigration, 

and, whether or not on the driver’s licenses or what have you, is 

happening all across the Nation. Perhaps I can ask for some comment on that. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am happy to do so, Congresswoman. I am familiar with the legislation you are talking about, and I think one important nuance to put forth is it is just not the dilemma of distinguishing between illegal and legal individuals in this country, it is 

the nuance also of those hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions 

of individuals who are legally here in the country but not citizens. 

Right now HAVA requires that the Social Security Administration enter into a compact with all 50 States to verify the last four 

digits of that Social Security number that has been submitted in 

some cases by a registrant voter application. The problem is the 

database that the Social Security Administration has does not necessarily distinguish between those individuals here as legal residents under a work visa or something similar and those who are 

citizens. That is a different database that exists with what used to 

be called the INS, and I think it is called ICE now or something 

like that. 

So there are structural barriers for us to try to achieve, again, 

the laudable goals that Congressman Mica was talking about and 

that clearly some States in the country like Arizona are trying to 

achieve. I think it is incumbent upon us to look to overcome those 

barriers. 

Mrs. MILLER. There are these various databases, and there has 

to be interoperability as we proceed with some of these things. 

I might also—maybe not so much a question as a comment, and 

I appreciate Representative Ney bringing this up earlier about 

some of the problems that you have run into with FTEs and having 

your interns and consultants, et cetera, all being grouped into the 

same barrel there, which is a little bit odd. Never did happen in 

State government; it is only here under the Dome that some of 

these things happen. 

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps this committee might 

want to write a letter to the appropriators expressing our consternation about that as a way to be a conduit that we have looked 

at it, had a hearing on it, and would ask them to take all these 

things into consideration as they proceed with that. 

A question I would have as well, and again I am sorry I was late, 

but with good staff work, Mr. Martinez mentioned Michigan was a 

national model in implementing HAVA. When I was the secretary 

of state there, we started this qualified voter file, is what we use 

in our nomenclature, and it was an interesting challenge because 

Michigan is somewhat unique in the Nation. Where normally it is 

the county clerk that has the voter registration list, in Michigan, 

78 

as Chairman Ehlers knows, we have a very decentralized type of 

system. So it is every village clerk, city clerk, township clerk in the 

entire State, to the extent we had about 1,800 various voter registration files. Some were quite sophisticated, and some were kept 

literally in somebody’s cigar box under their desk. 

Putting all of those into a computerized statewide database was 

part of an experience. It has worked out particularly well because 

I think we were able to actually eliminate as we sort of melded everything together about 600,000 names off of our file there, and I 

know other States are having similar kinds of experiences as they 

are doing this. 

I would say this. Our State is now hopefully successfully migrating to uniformity amongst election equipment, and all the other 

States are struggling with all that. A critical component of the 

partnership is with the vendors and the type of vendors out in the 

marketplace today and with the clerks and the people in the election industry are dealing with. I would say it is probably fair to say 

that this election year we are going to see more election equipment 

deployed, actually just deployed, than we have ever seen before, 

and that is a challenge for those involved in the elections industry. 

I think, as I have talked to a number of election officials in my 

district or around the Nation here, they are very concerned with 

the ability of voting system vendors to provide the types of support 

services that they are looking for. 

I would ask what EAC is doing to sort of bring this issue to light, 

sort of put the vendors on notice that everything is not going to be 

laid on the shoulders of the clerks, et cetera, if you have a vendor 

who is not providing adequate support service? I wonder if you 

have any comment in that area. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Thank you. Thank you for that. 

First, let me say Michigan was the leader in creating a statewide 

database, and I think the model for HAVA. I just want you to know 

that Chris Thomas from your State is now the chair of our advisory 

board. 

Mrs. MILLER. Good choice. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. But you are right, there have been problems, 

and we have certainly received correspondence from several State 

officials throughout the nation expressing their concern with vendors and their ability to serve and to fulfill contracts. Recognizing 

the relationships between vendors and the States or local governments, it is difficult for the EAC to get involved in their contractual 

relationships. However, at the same time, we recognize that this is 

a problem that we need to make sure we understand and try to do 

what we can to solve it. So we have had discussions with vendors 

about this topic. 

I have visited six States this year to observe the transition to 

new equipment and seen the vendors and their work; but, it is a 

concern for all of us because we recognize that while primaries are 

held week to week to week, on November 7th the whole country is 

going to be dealing with an election, and these vendors may be 

spread thin, and we really don’t want that to happen. So we are 

looking at this. 

Mrs. MILLER. I know my time is up. I might respectfully suggest 

you might want to think about having hearings or something so 

79 

you have a paper trail to put these vendors on notice that we are 

looking for them to provide the adequate support services for their 

products. It is a very important part of it all. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, and I appreciate your suggestion about taking care of the intern problem. 

We will follow through on that. 

We will start a second round of questions. We are expecting votes 

soon. If it is just one vote, we will try to continue afterwards if 

there are still questions. If it is multiple votes, we may have to end 

at that point. 

By the way, just in terms of your budget, your questions on how 

large was your budget, I did a quick calculation and realize that 

your budget comes to 8 cents per eligible voter in this country. I 

think that puts it in perspective. 

Starting the second round of questions, according to a recent 

electionline.org report on the progress of election reform, as of January 1, 2006, nearly half the states had missed one or more of 

HAVA’s deadlines. Do you agree with this assessment, and are 

more states coming into compliance as their primary elections approach? In other words, how are we doing in getting everyone in 

line, in total compliance? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That 

electionline.org survey which we did take a look at was a snapshot 

taken in January 2006. Certainly now that we sit here on June 8th 

with many primaries behind us, we have seen significant progress 

made throughout the country to comply with the Help America 

Vote Act. Certainly some States have been challenged in particular 

rural areas to find polling places accessible to people with disabilities. States have been challenged because they received equipment 

late. We have seen that happen throughout the country. 

I think if you take Pennsylvania as an example, it was put in a 

very difficult position because they were late in buying equipment. 

They had their primary election May 16th, and it came off relatively well. There were doomsday predictions, but it didn’t happen 

because election officials are working very hard to come in compliance with HAVA. 

We anticipate that by November most of the country will be in 

compliance. Certainly there will be States like New York who won’t 

be, and there will be scattered counties who may not have changed 

from the punch card and lever machines and accepted money from 

the EAC to do so. We will have to deal with that. 

But I think we are moving in the right direction, and by November, a great chunk of the country will be in compliance with HAVA. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very comforting. 

What HAVA requirements are the states having the most trouble 

in meeting, and how are you assisting them in meeting those? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Well, I think it is a range of issues. One of 

them is the HAVA requirement to transition to new equipment and 

serve people with disabilities by requiring specific types of equipment at the polls, whether it is a touch-screen system or another 

system. And training poll workers to work with electronic machines 

where they haven’t done so before is a great challenge to election 

officials around the country, and certainly that has been a major 

80 

point of problems for people in local election jurisdictions throughout the country. 

I am going to ask my colleagues if they want to share some of 

the observations they have had. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone wish to comment? 

Commissioner Davidson. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

One of the biggest areas that some of the States have had trouble with is the voter registration file, bringing it in to the secretary 

of states or the election directors’ office statewide. They may have 

contracted with vendors, and the vendors didn’t produce it the way 

they felt like they should. They have gotten their money back, but 

they are starting over. 

So they have been working with the Justice Department to come 

to the agreement of what they can do, like verifying their files 

against the four digits with Social Security and things like that to 

put them in compliance until they get their system up. Even a lot 

of them feel they will have that up by the November election. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. One quick comment, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

The technology requirements in title 3 of HAVA have been met 

with more challenges by the jurisdictions. The bells and whistles 

require the voting systems, the statewide databases, those required 

expertise that perhaps chief election officials like the 38 secretary 

of states around the country perhaps didn’t have that technical expertise to build these databases. They have it now. They are making diligent efforts to do so. 

It is also true that some of the important requirements like provisional voting, you have had compliance by States across the 

board, and, in fact, at least 16 States in this country prior to the 

passage of HAVA had no form of failsafe voting prior to HAVA 

being passed. Now all States have some form of provisional voting, 

and it has ensured that over a million voters in the 2004 election 

cycle did not get disenfranchised. I think there are diligent efforts 

being made by our State and local partners. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

One last quick question. There is a lot of support out there for 

a voter-verified paper audit trail as it is called, and we have a bill 

introduced in the Congress to require that. What is your opinion 

of that? Is that the best way to ensure that we can have a complete, accurate audit, or have you conjured up or thought of some 

other approaches that we might take to deal with that question? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Mr. Chairman, the EAC hasn’t taken a position on the VVPAT per se. We have provided in our Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, for the use of the VVPAT, which is now 

mandated in 26 of the States across the nation. Just 3 years ago 

there were no States with VVPAT; and 2 years ago it was just the 

State of Nevada. 

So, there has been a dramatic change. I think it is the whole 

issue of independent verification of the voting process and of the 

balloting which one takes a look at. We set up procedures in our 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, and in the management 

guidelines we will issue this summer, to show election officials how 

they can secure a voting system from beginning to end, in which 

people can have trust and confidence. 

81 

Some States have decided to have the voter-verified paper audit 

trail as part of that component to trust the system that way. Other 

States have chosen not to because they feel comfortable in the system that is set up because there is an audit requirement under 

HAVA. These electronic machines, even those that are not required 

to have a VVPAT, are required to produce audit trails of what is 

inside the machine so that every ballot that is cast can be audited. 

So they can be trustworthy in the system, whether they have 

VVPAT or not, and we haven’t taken a position to advocate for that 

nationwide. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would be interested in receiving the information you have about the alternatives to VVPAT. 

Commissioner Davidson. 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Also, the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology is working on this. This is one of the things they are 

looking at. As that comes forth and they give more recommendations, we will make sure you get that information. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very helpful. 

My time has expired. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

I concur with my colleague in sending this letter to the appropriators with reference to FTEs and getting that straightened out. So 

thank you for that. 

I would also like to say that the issue that came up with my colleague Mr. Mica on the Arizona dispute, I want to remind us that 

this Commission is not a legislative body. It is incumbent upon us 

to try to see what we can do, Mr. Chairman, in terms of legislation 

or trying to see if we can alleviate or address that issue from the 

legislative body here. It is not theirs to do. I don’t think votes by 

them or anything else should be requested. 

On the military issue that we talked about and the lack of getting follow-through information and getting those—the database or 

the information back is something that is extremely important, 

given our military folks overseas in different places. 

Mr. Chairman, perhaps a hearing would be in place to bring 

forth our military folks who are responsible for that to see just why 

is it that we are not adhering to their participation in elections and 

getting this information back in a timely manner. 

I would certainly like to recommend, if you will, Mr. Chairman, 

that we look into a hearing on the military voting process. 

We do recognize that there are some issues with underfunding 

the last of the required HAVA payment in December of 2005, and 

the States are still struggling to meet the HAVA requirements because the law has been underfunded by nearly $1 billion. Can you 

tell me some of the issues States are facing because of this shortfall? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. I can address a few. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. I can address a few. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Many chairmen in this room. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. It has been difficult. This has been a process 

where the Federal Government took a big step when it appropriated $3.1 billion, and the States under HAVA were required to 

make a 5 percent match, and they have done so. We have seen in 

82 

many States, including your State of California, Madam Ranking 

Member, the passage of a bond issue to provide funds at the local 

level. So that has all been helpful. 

But across the country it has been difficult for many jurisdictions, particularly small jurisdictions throughout the country that 

have had the challenge of a one- or two-person office in dealing 

with technology and IT and equipment that they have never been 

used to, so they have had to put up some money. 

We recognize that technology is ever changing, and particularly 

with electronic voting that has been introduced in a major way in 

the country in the past 5 years, that there are going to be software 

and hardware changes, and improvements. As the Chairman mentioned, the human factor portion of voting, and making it easier to 

use this equipment are some examples. 

There is going to be an increase in demand and need for funds 

to change the equipment, to improve the equipment. We know that 

is probably coming sooner rather than later in the country, and you 

are going to hear about it probably from election officials within 

the next few years. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. That is exactly right, and there is 

ongoing changes in technology and IT, and there is a critical need, 

Mr. Chairman, for us to look at this again and to try to see what 

we can do to remedy that. 

When Mr. Mica asked about the budget for you, we are reminded 

that you were authorized for 3 years to try to implement HAVA, 

and because the President has the last word in authorizing or presenting a budget for you to continue, then you can really go into 

perpetuity, and I think it would be wise for this President to do 

that because of the effective way you have brought about the improvements. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Madam Ranking Member, we have been 

pleased by the administration’s support of the EAC. They have actually requested more funds than the Congress has appropriated 

for our operations budget. So, they have been very supportive over 

the last 3 years of the EAC and our funding. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Given there are so many different 

election laws and, of course, the civil rights law, and the voting 

rights reauthorization law is upon us now, are you working with 

other agencies to ensure enforcement of these laws? How do you 

connect with NVRA and civil rights and the Disabilities Act and 

others? 

Any one of you can answer that. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. We have ongoing discussions with the Department of Justice about every element of the Help America Vote Act, 

recognizing their important role in enforcement, but also recognizing that it is important for us to have discussions. 

We receive information, we have hearings, we have meetings 

where we hear from various groups about problems and difficulties 

they are having and about noncompliance with HAVA, the Voting 

Rights Act, or our elements of Federal laws that deal with elections. So, it is a partnership with them. We work closely with them 

to have discussions, but they are the enforcers of the Voting Rights 

Act. 

83 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. But the connectivity is there, and 

you have those ongoing discussions. Of course, if you are out there 

trying to improve upon voter participation and all of that, then you 

certainly want to be consulted by how these would either impede 

or expand your participation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up 

on something I think the Chairman said; e-mails of the ballots. The 

staff of the committee, bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, 

talked to ex-pats in Lebanon and Istanbul, and we met with the 

ex-pat groups. And I think it is the State of Virginia, I could be 

wrong, but one of them e-mails over to you when you are overseas, 

and you print that out, and then you can mail it back. 

I don’t know how we promote that for the whole country to do, 

but it is fantastic because the ex-patriots are overseas, and it is a 

wonderful way to get that ballot, and they can mail it back. 

Have you had—I appreciate the staff, Ranking Member’s and 

ours, for the time they looked at that. Have you had any involvement with that type of thing? That could be implemented in all 50 

States. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Congressman, you are right. There are plenty 

of State examples and State initiatives to facilitate voting by military and overseas voters and ex-pats. Some States are doing a 

great job in trying these innovations, whether they are using electronic means to send a ballot through the Internet, allowing a voter 

to download their ballot off the Internet, or faxing ballots overseas. 

Most of them, in fact I think about all of them, follow a process of 

returning the ballots physically. 

However, there is still this problem that we have in America 

with many of the States that have late primaries. So if you are in 

New York, or Washington, States that have primaries the second 

week in September, and they have to turn around to get their ballot ready for the November election, that may typically take 2 to 

3 weeks. You are looking at maybe at best a 30-day period to get 

ballots to someone overseas and back. Study after study has shown 

it takes 42 days to get that done. 

Mr. NEY. So e-mail would be instant. 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. That is why, Congressman Ney, we are looking 

at several States, and we are going to highlight that in our study 

this year, to encourage our States to look at something like this to 

serve voters overseas. 

Mr. NEY. I think it would be a wonderful thing to do because, 

again, the issue is the ability to vote, people’s right to vote, and 

that is why with the provisional votes, because somebody one time 

said this could hold up elections, it is better to have a delay at the 

end of the day, have the provisionals counted, than for people to 

be turned away for whatever reason at a poll. 

But for the ex-pats that are overseas and the military, it is the 

distance factor in getting it to them. Anything you could pursue on 

that I think would be really a wonderful thing. 

84 

I have one other question before my time runs out. With the 

whole issue of the security, Maryland, I believe, does random 

checks, if I remember right, on their machines. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. DAVIDSON. Maryland does. Many States do, yes. 

Mr. NEY. I don’t know why the States don’t do that, and this 

whole question of the security, just like the slot machines, they 

have this whole system from when they are manufactured to when 

they are tested in place, and with these machines, if there was required random testing, I think it would put to rest and people 

would feel better about the security of these machines. Have you 

looked into that at all? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. Mr. Ney, we are. In fact, in the draft we are 

developing for our certification process, as has been described this 

morning, and we are taking a look at doing random checks of voting equipment. As we look at certification of equipment, we are 

looking at the prospect of the EAC taking on a role of doing random tests of voting devices throughout the country. 

Mr. NEY. In closing, I just want to say something. Also, thank 

you for your work with Louisiana. I personally talked to the secretary of state, and we have written a letter to Justice. Some 

States haven’t complied, and Louisiana did everything humanly 

possible with the worst situation a State could have. I really have 

got to give the secretary of state and you working with him a lot 

of credit; and also as people were scattered about the country, to 

get those ballots out to them, I think Louisiana secretary of state 

and everybody involved with this, you all deserve a lot of credit in 

a bad situation to try some efforts there when other States haven’t 

complied and didn’t have the catastrophe that Louisiana had. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I might pick up a little bit on what Representative Ney is talking 

about with military voting, in particular ex-pats, et cetera. Everybody is talking about vote on the Internet. Everything is happening 

on the Internet. And, of course, everybody has consternation about 

fraud and whether we would be able to, through digital signatures 

or what have you, verify that these people that are voting are the 

individuals that—who are actually casting that ballot. 

I believe that the Department of Defense—and I am not sure if 

any of you are aware of this, but I think DOD actually has a contract to do vote by the Internet for overseas military. I am not 

quite sure how all of that would work. Obviously it would be easy 

enough to download a ballot for a national candidate, but individual precincts, even going down to precinct delegate-type things, 

they might not be able to download an entire ballot by precinct. I 

am not certain how that works. 

Even if you had the ability to download a ballot and then had 

to fill it out and send it back, you would eliminate or certainly compress the time. The Chairman was mentioning 42 days, 45 days. 

You would eliminate a big part of the process. 

Are any of you aware of the Department of Defense contract, and 

do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. DEGREGORIO. We are certainly, Madam Congresswoman, 

well aware of the work that was done by the Federal Voting AssistVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:13 Sep 07, 2006 Jkt 028926 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B926.XXX B926
85 

ance Program under the Department of Defense that they did in 

2004. It was called the SERVE Project, and it was a pilot project 

to allow people to cast ballots through the Internet, military and 

overseas voters. However, the project began in the Summer of 2003 

and was shut down by the Department of Defense in March of 2004 

because of the concerns of some academics over the security of the 

system. 

Now they did spend, it was estimated to me, over $20 million on 

this project. We did get a private briefing about the results of their 

work, and that helps instruct us when we look at utilizing our 

funds to look into Internet voting, particularly for military and 

overseas voting. So it was helpful for us to learn from what they 

did. 

But this is an important area, and I think one that certainly can 

provide greater access for military men and women and overseas 

voters, and that is why we are taking a look at it and want to devote some of our efforts in this area in addition to the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

Mrs. MILLER. Just one other question. Part of the total voting experience, when an individual or voter shows up at the polls, poll 

workers are a big part of the process. And some poll workers do 

their job very well, and some do not do a great job. But I am a big 

fan, and I know Michigan has done this—and if you can just tell 

us how many other States may have done this—of utilizing our 

younger generation for poll workers. When you have 16- and 17- 

year-olds, first of all they are willing to work those long hours for 

very little money, and they are very enthusiastic, which is a great 

thing. And it is a wonderful way to get them engaged into democracy, I think, as well. And as technology is changing, they are not 

afraid of the technology or new methods. No problem for them to 

change the way they are doing things. And they are always looking 

to improve on that. 

And I am just wondering if the EAC has taken a position on 

that. It is a big part of the process. Any comment on that? 

Ms. HILLMAN. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. The 

EAC is certainly a strong proponent of involving young people in 

the election process. And those States where the law allows the 

participation of young people, they certainly are beginning to put 

together creative programs. 

I think, to answer a question that was raised earlier about some 

of the effects of the fact that the total appropriation wasn’t made, 

some States have had to cut back on the amount of money they 

would have used for the training and recruitment of poll workers, 

including students, in order to fulfill their other responsibilities, 

such as the statewide voter registration and the databases. 

There are the occasional elected officials who aren’t sure that the 

amount of time they perceive has to go into the training of young 

people would provide them the benefit that they seek with respect 

to the perception of an adult poll worker perhaps coming back a 

second time; but through the college poll worker program, we found 

that the students really get engaged and have a much better appreciation and affection for the system once they are on the inside. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

86 

The CHAIRMAN. I see no further questions. And we are going to 

have a vote on the floor in just a few minutes. So with that—— 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Just one quick one, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Ranking Member is recognized. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. First, I would like to commend you 

on this. This is just great. I think it is so innovative. And this is 

volunteer—voluntary voting systems guidelines that you spoke 

about earlier. So this is the apparatus. 

And we talk about, really, more high participation of voters. We 

look at the State of Oregon, where they have mail-in voting, bymail-only voting. We are talking about early voting that some 

States are going to. And we have just got to get away from just 

one-size-fits-all now. We have got to do, to me, a myriad of things 

for voters to really find the time to participate. You have working 

mothers, working fathers, single parents, and so I think it is just 

so incumbent upon us to not be so myopic when it comes to just 

Tuesday voting, but have other means of voter participation. I am 

hearing that in Oregon they have high participation because of this 

mail-only type of voting. 

And so I commend you on the work that you have done, the work 

that you are doing; you are just such an asset to us in trying to 

bring this democracy to—to continue this great democracy of ours. 

And I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, so much for this outstanding oversight hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for that comment. And I am a little 

surprised to hear you support mail-only voting. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Well, there are many other ones, 

too, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I didn’t want you to be accused of gender 

discrimination. 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. This is why he is a physicist, by the 

way. 

Mr. NEY. I will be very brief. I just want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the hearing and also the Commission for the great 

work you do. 

Jimmy Carter and—President Jimmy Carter and President Gerald Ford had said that next to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this 

is one of the most profound pieces of legislation to affect the ability 

to do something about fraud and also to have people able to vote. 

And the big component follow-up to those comments in the FordCarter Commission, after legislation passed, is all of you and commissions. So I really appreciate the job that you have all done to 

break new ground where we never went before. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would like to join in that. 

Thank you very much for spending your time with us. You have 

been extremely helpful. Your testimony has been right on in terms 

of the issues that we were concerned about and wanted to look at. 

And so it has been very, very helpful to hear your thoughtful comments, and we will continue to look into this issue and we will be 

in further contact with you. 

I ask unanimous consent that members and witnesses have 7 

calendar days to submit material for the record, including additional questions of the witnesses, and for those statements and maVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:13 Sep 07, 2006 Jkt 028926 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B926.XXX B926
87 

terials to be entered into the appropriate place in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes on all matters considered by the 

Committee at today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Having completed our business for today and for this oversight 

hearing, the Committee is hereby adjourned. And thank you again 

for sharing your wisdom with us. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]