United States Election Assistance Commission 

Board of Advisors Annual Meeting 

Held at 

9:00 a.m. EST 

Tuesday, April 25 & Wednesday, April 26, 2023 

Fairmont Washington D.C. Georgetown 

2401 M Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 

20037 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is the verbatim transcript of the United States Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors Annual Meeting that was held on Tuesday, 

April 25 & Wednesday, April 26, 2023. The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. April 

25 and adjourned at 5:08 p.m. April 26, 2023. 

*** 

CALL TO ORDER 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Good morning, everyone. 

[Chorus of good mornings] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

It’s great to see everybody in person. I know many of us are 

meeting each other for the first time, and -- or are seeing each 

other for the first time in real life, so thank you for making the trip. 

Those of you who traveled, and those of you from D.C., thank you 

for bringing us together and coming together. 

And thank you to the staff, also, who have worked very hard 

to pull this meeting together. They may tell you soon, but they’ve 

just come off of the Standards meeting in Phoenix, so they’re doing 

this back-to-back, so we’re going to give them a little break today. 

We’re not going to make their life any more difficult. But thank you 

again. 

My name is Greg Moore. I serve as Chair of the Board of 

Advisors. I’m happy to be here. I’ve been on the Board for quite a 

few years, but I had no idea I’d be the chair of the Board at this 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

point in my life, but it happened last year, thanks to a vacancy that 

opened with our former chair, Alison McLaughlin (phonetic), but 

thank you for coming and being a part of this effort. I think I’m 

going to turn everything over to our designated federal officer, who I 

don’t see --

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

He’s over here. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

There he is. Okay, who is going to begin the meeting. I’ll 

have some opening remarks, but I think we want to -- first things 

first, we want to start with our Pledge of Allegiance, so 

Commissioner Palmer? 

*** 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

[Commissioner Donald Palmer led the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.] 

*** 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

WELCOME 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, hello, everyone, and welcome to the 2023 Board of 

Advisors meeting. I want to thank the ADFO Brady and all of our 

staff for putting this together for us. I’m Commissioner Palmer, and 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m pleased to welcome you to the -- as the Designated Federal 

Officer of the Board of Advisors. Since we’ve last met here in 

person, there are many new faces on this Board, many exciting 

updates for the EAC, and the election landscape has shifted 

dramatically. I’d like to thank the Board members who joined us 

virtually for the last few Board of Advisors annual meetings, for 

making those events engaging and effective despite being virtual. 

We’re very happy to see you all today in person. 

Congress established the EAC as a bipartisan agency, but 

recognized the need for other viewpoints and stakeholder interests 

that may not be directly aligned with a particular party or viewpoint. 

Congress wanted the Board of Advisors and the EAC’s other 

boards to advise and give recommendations to the EAC on voting 

system standards and other EAC priorities at the core of the 

Help America Vote Act. Each of you represents a stakeholder that 

we need to hear from, and this is an opportunity to do so. 

One significant request that I would make today of you is to 

help to amplify our message. Please understand that the EAC is 

dedicated to communicating that we stand behind the nation’s 

current voting systems. We seek to build voter confidence as we 

discuss our current certified voting systems for 2024, and as we 

start to transition to the new generation of voting systems with 

enhanced security, audibility, and accuracy. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

Our message needs to be that Americans can be confident 

that their vote will be counted, and the vote totals will be accurate 

and secure. That message needs to be shared consistently and 

frequently through 2024 and beyond. Now, the EAC will lead the 

way in this effort, but no one voice is enough or can be enough. 

We need you to facilitate that conversation by allowing us to send 

materials to your members or perhaps speak with larger audiences 

in the hope that the message to the public reaches a critical mass 

and we are able to increase trust with the American people. 

So, today we have a substantial agenda, but we have 

formulated the discussion to increase participation and feedback, 

and we would encourage that. The feedback is critical, along with 

the information we receive from our other Advisory Boards, the 

Standards Board, Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

and the Local Leadership Council. 

The Board of Advisors’ makeup is very different from our 

other boards, but that makes it no less important. The diversity of 

backgrounds and perspectives, in addition to election officials, 

makes the feedback we receive from you extremely valuable on 

everything from accessibility to election security. 

The meeting agenda is filled with updates on the EAC 

programming. You’ll hear about the clearinghouse division and the 

dozens of new resources that have been developed for election 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

officials, as well as the expansion of the testing and certification 

program updates on VVSG 2.0 and the development of our election 

supporting technology evaluation program. 

We’re honored to have Representatives Steil and Morelle 

from the Committee on House Administration addressing the board 

today. I appreciate their insight and time that they take away from 

the Capitol to share their thoughts on elections and the priorities of 

the committee. 

The EAC has also designed the panels in the meeting to 

cover a range of important topics, especially as we prepare for 

2024. First, no one should be harassed, threatened, or demeaned 

at their place of work, and certainly not public servants, like election 

officials. That doesn’t mean a reduction in transparency or public 

involvement, though. 

Coordination by election staff across the country and law 

enforcement has been improving in identifying true threats to 

legitimate free speech, but there’s still work to be done in the 

coming months to inform officials and staff on the best practices in 

working with local law enforcement. 

Election audits are an important way officials can show the 

public that election results are accurate and that procedures are 

being followed. These audits should give voters confidence in our 

elections and that those votes are being counted. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Election officials have also been inundated with public 

records requests. Some are unnecessary and serve no meaningful 

purpose. With limited staff and budgets, responding to these 

requests, according to the law, can be a drain on resources and 

divide our attention from the election process itself. I’m looking 

forward to hearing about best practices in this area with the 

members. 

Finally, last year, the EAC celebrated 20 years of HAVA, and 

we will celebrate the National Voter Regulation Act’s 30th year 

anniversary this year. These two pieces of legislation mark 

significant protections and progress for elections. We’ll discuss the 

legacy and future of HAVA and the NVRA during tomorrow’s 

panels. 

Since 2020, there’s been increased attention and scrutiny in 

to elections, but also criticism and speculation. I’m a big believer in 

the constant improvement of elections and preparations, so now is 

the time to prepare for elections in 2024. 

Later this week, I’ll be testifying about confidence in 

elections, and I look forward to highlighting many of the topics we’re 

discussing today. Hearing your feedback and listening to your 

questions provides valuable insight of the work of the agency and 

the election landscape from your diverse perspectives. 

7 
 

 

 

Thank you all for joining the EAC and participating in today’s 

meeting. I hope we have engaging conversations over the next 

couple of days, and I’ll look forward to your feedback. Thank you. 

With that, I’m going to turn it to my fellow commissioner. 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

We’re over here. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

Well, welcome, and thank you to each of you for taking time 

out of your busy schedules to be here with us. We appreciate the 

advice provided to us by our Federal Assistance Committee Act 

Boards as we work to meet the mission provided to us by 

Congress, and that is to assist election officials across the country 

and to help Americans vote. 

We are fully cognizant that the federal government does not 

administer elections. That is constitutionally the duty of the states. 

Our job is not to regulate elections, provide mandates, or tell the 

states what to do. We are here as a service agency, only to assist, 

which is what I often say is our middle name: assistance. 

When the EAC was created, Congress was painfully aware 

of the many issues in election administration across the country, 

and while we’ve come a long way, there is still much to do to 

ensure integrity, transparency, and security in our elections. 

8 
 

 

We all agree that elections are the foundation of our 

constitutional republic, and our voters must have confidence in 

them and in their outcomes if we’re to peacefully continue. I know 

that each of us comes here respectfully with the same goals: to 

improve our elections, to help those who do carry them out to do so 

professionally and fairly, and to help instill trust and confidence in 

the electorate -- I’m repeating what you’re saying, 

Commissioner Palmer. Often, right? 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Yes. 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

-- that the American elections are free and secure, and that 

they reflect the will of the people. 

Again, I thank you for your time. I look forward to the 

meeting and listening to what each of you has to offer, and I, again, 

thank you for being here. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

Thank you, Chair McCormick. It’s great to be here. As 

Chair Moore said, we are just coming off of the Standards Board. 

This is a very different entity. It’s nice to be at one table. The 

Standards Board, as you all know, is 110 members, representing 

each state and territory in the country. And as my colleagues noted, 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

you know, when I think about Board of Advisors, it really is the 

diversity of opinions that we get from this entity, and I’m really 

looking forward to this meeting and the conversation. 

It's an exciting time at the EAC. It’s, obviously, a very tough 

time for the election administration community, but we’ve been --

Congress has been able to support the EAC a little bit more in 

recent years, which we appreciate, and that has resulted in a lot of 

programs that I’m so proud of. I know my colleagues are, and 

we’re looking forward to sharing some of that work with you today 

and hearing from you about your suggestions and advice for how 

we move the agency forward. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. Mr. Hicks? 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

Thank you, Chair Moore. I want to thank you all for -- I’m so 

sorry. I want to thank you all for coming here today. It’s been a 

long time since I’ve seen many of you in person. It’s great to see 

you all. There’s been a lot of changes at the agency, a lot of 

changes for the positive as well. We've done a lot of great things, 

and I’m looking forward to hearing from all of you. You have a 

unique opportunity to speak with/for presidentially confirmed 

commissioners to give your feedback on how we can improve 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

elections overall, and that’s a great opportunity, and I hope that you 

take advantage of that. 

As my fellow Commissioner said, we came off of the 

Standards Board meeting, which we had a lot of great dialogue, a 

lot of great feedback, and a lot of good discourse. I’m looking 

forward to hearing the diverse community in here today as we 

debate moving forward with the election processes. And with that, 

you know, we have a great program for the next two days, and with 

that, I’ll turn it back over to Chairman Moore. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Commissioner Hicks. Commissioner Palmer, I 

think we would need you to ask for the proxy report at this time. 

PROXY COMMITTEE REPORT 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

All right. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

And now, we’ll accept the report from the Proxy Committee. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. I’ll now recognize Secretary Mark Ritchie . 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have the following proxies: 

Sarah Ball Johnson proxies her ability to vote to Linda Lamone. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Nadolsky proxies his ability to vote to Hannah Ibanez. 

Dean Logan proxies his ability to vote to Joseph Gloria. Secretary 

Ardoin proxies his ability to vote to Secretary Way, and when she’s 

not in attendance, to Cleta Mitchell. Secretary Way proxies her 

ability to vote when she is not in attendance to Ricky Hatch. 

Elizabeth Howard proxies her ability to Eric Fey when she is not in 

attendance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Without objection, this proxy report is accepted. As a 

reminder, proxy voting is allowed for all business matters, including 

executive officer elections. 

I’m going to turn this back over to Secretary Mark Ritchie for 

the roll call. 

ROLL CALL; DETERMINATION OF QUORUM 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you very much. For the roll call, we’ve heard the 

proxies. We’re just getting a few e-mails from folks, so I’m going to 

just start from the top. Please say present if you’re here, and 

there’ll be a couple people added that we would not have seen, just 

because we’re just getting word just now, so, Mr. Chairman, I’ll 

proceed. 

*** 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Ritchie, Secretary of the Standards Board, called roll.] 

*** 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have our quorum, having more 

than 18 people present. 

OATH OF OFFICE 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That’s wonderful. Thank you very much, Secretary Ritchie. 

I will now turn the floor back over to our Designated Federal Officer 

to administer our oath of office. 

*** 

[Commissioner Palmer led the recitation of the Oath of Office.] 

*** 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Chairman Moore? 

INTRODUCTORY BUSINESS 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Board Members, and congratulations on your 

term in office for the Board of Advisors for this session. I would like 

to now turn our attention to the screen, where I believe we will have 

the agenda present there. Also, all of you should have packets, 

where the agenda is in those packets, and I would, at this time, like 

to entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. FOGARTY: 

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So moved by? 

MR. FOGARTY: 

John Fogarty. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Is there a second? 

MR. STARK: 

Second. Philip Stark. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Stark moves. Fogarty seconds. It is moved and seconded 

that this body adopts the agenda before you. I will now take a 

voice vote to adopt the agenda. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Opposed? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. The ayes have it, and the agenda is adopted. 

I would like to remind all members that they were sent the 

annual 2022 minutes ahead of the meeting. I’d like to now call for a 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voice vote on the minutes of that previous meeting. Is there a 

motion to accept the minutes from the previous meeting? 

MR. DICKSON: 

So move. Dickson. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Moved by Mr. Dickson. Is there a second? 

MR. HATCH: 

Second. Hatch. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Second by Vice Chair Hatch. All those in favor of approving 

the minutes, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Oppose? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

The ayes have it. Thank you. 

It is now moved and seconded that this body adopts the 

minutes. We’ve taken the vote. Now, I will announce the Election 

Certification Committee spokesperson, who is Linda Lamone, who 

is here with us again. And there are two other members, and I 

think I have the wrong -- the two other members, I do not have. 

MS. BRADY: 

15 
 

 

 

You’ve been appointed, Eric Fey and Shane Schoeller. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Eric Fey and Sang Schoeller. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Right. You don’t know what you’re going to get when you 

come to a Board of Advisors meeting. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

This committee is basically -- pursuant to the bylaws, we 

now have appointed our three members to the committee. The 

committee will announce the nominees for the Executive Office 

position described in the election process and certify the election 

results. 

I recognize Board Member Lamone as the spokesperson for 

this process. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Thank you, Chairman Moore. The nominees are Chair Greg 

Moore, Vice Chair Ricky Hatch, Secretary Mark Ritchie. In 

accordance with the bylaws, if there is only one nominee for an 

office or position, the election of that officer shall take place by 

voice vote. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. In accordance with the bylaws, if there is only 

one nominee for an office or position, the election of that officer 

shall take place by voice vote. I now recognize Vice Chair 

Ricky Hatch. 

MR. HATCH: 

I will now entertain a motion to take a vote to elect 

Greg Moore as chair of the Board of Advisors. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

So move. 

MR. HATCH: 

Moved by Member Fogarty. Second? 

MR. STARK: 

Second. 

MR. HATCH: 

Second by Member Stark. Thank you. Let's see. Any other 

objections? Okay. It is moved and seconded that this body elect 

Greg Moore as chair of the Board of Advisors. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

MR. HATCH: 

All opposed, say nay. 

[No response] 

MR. HATCH: 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ayes have it, and Greg Moore is elected Chair of the 

Board of Advisors. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you very much. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That is the easiest election I’ve ever been a part of. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I will now entertain a motion to take a vote to elect Ricky 

Hatch as Vice Chair of the Board of Advisors. Is there a motion? 

MS. WAY: 

I’ll move it. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Could you say your name, please? 

MS. WAY: 

Way. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Secretary Way has moved. Is there a second? 

MR. GLORIA: 

Second. Joseph Gloria. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joseph Gloria is the second. It is now moved and seconded 

that this body elect Ricky Hatch as the vice chair. All those in favor, 

say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Opposed? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

The ayes have it. Congratulations, Mr. Vice Chair. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I will now entertain a motion to take a vote to elect Mark 

Ritchie as Secretary of the Board of Advisors. Is there --

MR. DICKSON: 

So moved. Dickson. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So moved by Jim Dickson. Is there a second? 

MS. SIMONS: 

Second. Simons. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Second by Member Simons. All those in favor of Mark 

Ritchie as the Secretary of the Board, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All opposed? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Hearing no objection, the ayes have it. Mark Ritchie, you 

are now elected the Secretary of this Board. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I will now turn this back over to Chair Lamone. 

[Laughter] 

MS. LAMONE: 

Thank you. The Election Committee now certifies the results 

of the voice vote for the election of executive officers of the Board 

of Advisors. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. It’s been so moved, and we accept that report. 

Thank you for your service, both here on this board and your many 

years of service to the State of Maryland. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you’d like to say a few words, you can. This is actually the 

time to do it. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Well, I just want to say thank you to everyone here that I 

know and those of you I’m meeting for the first time. I’ve been on 

this Board, I think, since the inception. 

MS. LAMONE: 

And I think we’ve accomplished some good things and 

hopefully help the EAC out a little bit every now and then, but it’s 

been a pleasure to work with all of you. And thank you for letting 

me say a few words, Greg. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Absolutely. Thank you. You set an example as how chairs 

should operate, and we appreciate the leadership that you’ve 

shown, so thank you again for your --

MS. LAMONE: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- many, many decades of service. 

We would now like to recognize the Acting General Counsel 

of the EAC, who will go over our Board’s responsibilities as under 

the Help America Vote Act. Amanda Joiner, the chair is yours. 

MS. JOINER: 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good morning, everybody. It is good to see all of you 

outside of our Zoom windows. I believe my presentation should 

come up in just a moment. Let me move through here. Okay. 

Maybe not. 

Okay. Thank you, Chair. As you said, I am Amanda Joiner. 

I’m the Acting General Counsel and the Committee Management 

Officer here at the EAC, and today, I’d like to talk to you all about 

membership responsibilities, for those of you who are members of 

a FACA Board, which all of you are. 

For most of you, this may be a bit of a refresher, but those of 

you who are new, I hope you get something out of this, and if you 

have any questions, feel free to reach out to me, here in person, or 

e-mail, whatever you need. I’ll be there to answer those for you. 

So, as you know, the Help America Vote Act established 

three permanent advisory boards. We also, in 2021, established a 

fourth advisory board, the Local Leadership Council. The Board of 

Advisors, Standards, Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee and Local Leadership Council, are all subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

And FACA was enacted in 1972. It governs advisory 

committee establishment; operations and management of advisory 

committees; the duration of advisory committees. Essentially, what 

FACA was trying to do was to facilitate additional transparency into 

22 
 

 

 

how federal agencies operated, by laying down some parameters 

on how the advisory committees would operate. There’s several 

requirements, including naming a designated federal officer, 

committee management officer, and there’s records retention 

requirements and other issues, including charter renewal 

procedures that we must follow. 

More specifically for you, though, the duties of each of our 

four advisory committees are listed here, and I’ll only go into the 

duties that you and the Standards Board are both tasked with, 

which are the requirement to review the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines, the Voluntary Guidance under Title III, and best 

practices contained in the reports that we submit to Congress. 

Individually, you do have the responsibility to participate in 

meetings and on subcommittees as appropriate, including when 

you’re named on the spot to a committee in a meeting. You’re also 

required to comport yourself with integrity so as not to trade upon 

your position as a member of an advisory board for your own 

personal benefit. This is a pretty essential part of your 

responsibilities. It requires that any permissible direct 

communications with Congress in your official capacity as a Board 

member be made only through official channels here at the EAC. 

This leads into the federal law prohibition against you being 

a federally registered lobbyist. However, I do note that these 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

restrictions do not prohibit you from lobbying members of 

Congress or your state legislatures or urging others to do so on 

your own time in your personal capacity. So please, if you do find 

yourself doing anything in that realm of activity, make it clear that 

you’re not representing the EAC or the Advisory Board of which you 

are a member in that activity. 

I mentioned earlier the agencies are required to appoint 

Designated Federal Officers who are responsible for the 

management and supervision of agency committees. We must 

also have a charter filed for each of our committees, and those 

charters must be renewed every two years, or they will be 

terminated. And I’m happy to say that a couple of weeks ago, the 

charters for all four of our boards, including the Board of Advisors, 

were renewed by the Commissioners, so our charter is now good 

until April 12, 2025, which, believe it or not, is not that long from 

now. 

[Laughter] 

MS. JOINER: 

Now, a little bit on the membership guidelines for those of 

you who are named to the Board. Selections are generally required 

to be balanced in terms of the point of view represented and 

geographical representation. I think, especially for us, we can 

value that in the elections administration community, the different 

24 
 

 

 

 

perspectives that all of you bring. Meetings are required to be open 

to the public, and the DFO approves all committee and 

subcommittee minutes and agendas. All of these agendas and 

minutes are posted to the EAC website, so if you’re looking for a 

historical review of what our boards have done, you can find 

minutes, agendas, and transcripts on our website, which is due to 

be updated anytime now, so that would be really nice. 

This is a bit more about what the minutes are required to 

entail: date, time, and location; record of attendees present; and 

complete and accurate description of each matter that was 

discussed or was planning to be taken up at that meeting. 

And then, of course, our Designated Federal Officers, 

Commissioner Palmer, for everyone here, the Board of Advisors. 

Commissioner Hicks is the Standards Board DFO. Chairwoman 

Christy McCormick is our DFO for the Technical Guidelines 

Development Committee. And Vice Chair Ben Hovland is our DFO 

for the Local Leadership Council. The commissioners do rotate 

these roles, so they rotated into these new positions in February of 

this year, and I know they’re all looking forward to working with you 

in those capacities. 

The EAC has also taken the step of naming alternate 

designated federal officers, so you all are very aware now of 

Sara Brady, who is our amazing ADFO for the Board of Advisors. 

25 
 

 

 

Kim Smith, the Standards Board ADFO we mentioned already, 

great meeting last week. Jon Panek, who I believe has a 

presentation for you today, is the ADFO for TGDC and 

Kammi Foote is our ADFO for our newly established Local 

Leadership Council. 

And last, I want to go over the procedures for the bylaw 

amendments that you will consider today. Per the bylaws, the 

current bylaws, the Board may amend the bylaws with a two-thirds 

vote of the members present in person and by proxy. The 

proposed amendments must be submitted to the DFO 45 days prior 

to the meeting. The DFO transmits the changes to the Bylaws 

Committee for consideration, and the committee submits the 

proposed bylaws to the full Board. 

I will certify to you, as I have in writing already, that the 

amendments that you will consider today have followed this 

procedure and are properly being placed before you today for your 

consideration. 

Now, the amendments you will consider were originally 

proposed during the 2022 annual meeting some of you may recall. 

Those two amendments that were essentially tabled were taken 

back to the Bylaws Committee for extensive review, editing, and 

evaluation of all of the feedback that everyone submitted on these 

two particular amendments. Those amendments, in their final form 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

which you will consider today, were circulated some time ago via email. I believe Sara sent that over to everyone, so everyone should 

have had an opportunity to review them. 

But today, you will also have an opportunity to debate and 

vote on the amendments, subject to two important procedural 

steps, or procedural points, I should say. One, non-substantive 

amendments, such as those to correct typographical areas, syntax 

and the like, those can be considered today, but in the interest of 

time, we are going to hold off on any substantive amendments that 

may be proposed today. That is not to say you cannot propose a 

substantive amendment, but if you do, it will be taken back, and 

that amendment will not be voted on today. However, I do remind 

you that all of you were sent these amendments a while back, and 

hopefully any questions that you have had were already addressed. 

And the last point I have here is if there is something that is 

sent back, the Chair may entertain a motion to recommit to the 

Bylaws Committee for further consideration of that particular 

amendment. 

That concludes my presentation. As I said, please feel free 

to reach out to me here in person. My e-mail and direct line here is 

available to you as well. And I look forward to our meeting here 

today. 

I will turn it back over to you, Chair. Thank you. 

27 
 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you very much for that report. Are there any quick 

questions for our Acting General Counsel? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. If not, I want to turn this back over to DFO Palmer, 

who will make a quick announcement about what we’re going to do 

next. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So we are ahead of scheduling. Chair Moore and I talked 

about introducing ourselves to each other. A lot of new faces. A lot 

of diverse groups represented. So what I thought we would do, and 

the Chair sort of agreed, is that we would go around the table and 

introduce ourselves and perhaps spend maybe a half a minute to a 

minute what’s on your mind, what’s your concerns, and what do 

you hope to achieve here, you know, at this meeting. We have 

about at least 20 minutes, subject to our next speaker arriving, so, 

Chair, I thought that would be a good idea. Would you like to --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Well, what we’re going to do then, we can start it at --

from the beginning of the table to the back of the table, but I think 

we can get through all of it. I think he’s expected to arrive at 10:00, 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so if we don’t get to everyone, we’ll stop, and then we’ll pick it back 

up after we finish. But thank you for that, Commissioner Palmer. 

How do we want to start? 

We’ll start with Greg Moore. Let me do that, first. 

My name’s Greg Moore. I’ve been on the Advisory Board I 

believe since 2014, and I have worked in this area of voting rights 

for a number of years, both as an advocate and a strong supporter 

of the EAC and very active in early years for the passage of the 

National Voter Registration Act that you will hear about tomorrow 

during our presentation. 

And I think what I’m looking for out of this meeting and this 

term of office is to basically build a stronger alliance between this 

Board as well as the Standards Board and your new Leadership 

Council that has been established. Those are three bodies that 

have responsibilities for the work that many of us do in our day-today jobs, and we believe that this Advisory Board has gotten 

stronger. The EAC’s gotten stronger and better funded, and we 

can use a lot of this intelligence around the room to help build those 

allegiances, so that would be my hope. 

MR. HATCH: 

Good morning. My name is Ricky Hatch, and I am the 

Weaver County Clerk Auditor. That’s in Utah, just a little bit north of 

Salt Lake. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve been a member of the Board of Advisors first in 2015 

and then took a little break as IACREOT and NACRC merged to 

form IGO, and now I’m back and represent the National Association 

of Counties. 

I’m excited to work with Chairman Moore and of course 

everybody here. I come to these meetings, and it’s really humbling 

to see the caliber of people around this table, and I look up to so 

many of you. It’s really impressive, so I’m looking forward to 

working with you and working together as an Advisory Board to 

advise our good Commissioners. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you. My name is Mark Ritchie, and I’ve been serving 

since the creation of the Advisory Board as an appointee from the 

Rules Committee of the U.S. Senate. I was Minnesota’s Secretary 

of State, elected in 2005. I promised my wife two terms, and I was 

fortunate enough to do that, and I kept my promise, and I’ve been 

retired for a little while. 

I get back to Washington occasionally because I serve as 

Minnesota’s civilian aide to the Secretary of the Army, and I’m 

struck by the value of and the meaning of the oath that we took, 

which is an oath I took in coming into office and an oath I took 

becoming the civilian aide to the Secretary of the Army, and I think 

it's the seriousness about the public’s work that we take, all of us 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and those of you that I know personally, I know the seriousness by 

which you take this work, and that inspires me, and it keeps me 

going, and it keeps me pretty busy involved in election-related 

work, even though I’m officially retired. 

MR. SCHOELLER: 

Good morning. Shane Schoeller, County Clerk in Green 

County, Missouri, and this is, I guess, on my eighth year of being a 

member of this Board. I was appointed in 2015, as through the 

Rules Committee. 

And really, I think what I’m hoping today is that we can 

continue to find ways that we be more helpful to local election 

officials. What I see, especially in our rural counties in Missouri, 

there is a lot more examination in terms of public interest of what is 

happening with local election officials, what can we do to come 

alongside of them, to be helpful to them, to give them the tools, the 

necessary resources they need to be the best at what they do, and 

I think that the word I think of is collaboration in terms of we’re all in 

this together. 

And so if we can come alongside, help them be better at 

what they do, because I think sometimes we forget they have many 

other administrative duties that they have to undertake in terms of 

the roles that they have outside of elections, and so what can we 

do to help them, so they can be the best, especially, for example 

31 
 

 

 

 

our state, I have -- I’m glad to be joined by Eric Fey today, he’ll tell 

you we have almost 40 new election officials since the 2020 

election, and so we’ve had a number resign and a number who 

cannot run again, a handful that lost in the re-elections, but that’s a 

concern that I have, and we want to make sure that we can, in this 

body, to come alongside and help them. 

MR. FEY: 

Amen, brother. Everybody, my name is Eric Fey. I’m the 

Director of Elections, St. Louis County, Missouri Board of Elections 

there. I represent IGO on this Board. I was appointed last year, I 

believe, the Election Officials Division Director at IGO. 

And you know, that’s a big focus of mine in this field is 

professional development for election administrators, because as 

Shane just said, in Missouri and a lot of states, we’ve had a big 

turnover in local election administrators. I know, as one former 

EAC Commissioner was fond of saying that elections are run at the 

local level. You know, states don’t run elections; local 

administrators do. And so, as we see this turnover, hopefully the 

resources that EAC provides can be, as Shane said, brought 

alongside of them to help them out. 

So I’ll stop there and pass it on. It’s nice to be here today 

with everybody today. Thank you. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good morning. My name is Cleta Mitchell. I am the 

appointee. This is my first in-person meeting. My first meeting was 

the Zoom call last year. I was appointed last year by the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, and I serve at their pleasure. I’m also 

the founder of Election Integrity Network. 

I work every week with hundreds and hundreds of local 

election integrity task forces, state election integrity coalitions, and 

we run nine national working groups on various aspects of election 

administration, and my goal is to hopefully help give voice to 

citizens who are paying attention, many for the first time ever, and 

try to help both the election administration community and the 

citizens understand that they are not adversaries. We want to train 

volunteers. The very first thing we tell them is get to know your 

local election officials. Be right and be polite. 

And look, I mean, I understand that there’s a continuum of 

citizen engagement and the people who get involved, and as I 

always say, I have a very high tolerance for grass roots and no 

patience at all with crazy, and it’s important to be able to discern 

the difference. There are a lot of people who think I’m crazy. 

That’s fine. They can choose to do that. 

But I’m telling you that we have to look at this involvement 

and engagement of citizens as a positive not a negative. Just as I 

say to the volunteers and the citizens, the election administrators 

33 
 

 

 

are not your enemies. I say that to the election administration 

community. Citizen involvement is a good thing. It is not a bad 

thing, and my goal every day is to try to help with election 

administration and help give sunlight, transparency, and 

accountability to the process, because if we don’t, if people decide 

-- and there are a lot of people who are thinking this way, which I 

hate to hear -- that their vote is not going to be counted accurately 

and not diluted by illegal votes, votes cast in violation of state law --

and that’s not fraud, that’s just illegal voting -- and if we don’t 

realize that that’s happening, it is happening. 

If we don’t work on cleaning voter rolls, we need to clean 

voter rolls. The voter rolls are a mess. Citizens know that. So let’s 

work together. And my goal is for us to be able to work together 

and to understand that citizen engagement is a good thing, not a 

bad thing, and let’s stop treating citizen questions as threats, 

harassment, intimidation, but let’s help the citizens know the best 

way to approach their election administrators so that we can all get 

along. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

MS. SIMONS: 

34 
 

 

My name is Barbara Simons. I’ve been on this Board since 

2008, which I find kind of astounding. I’m a computer scientist by 

training, retired from IBM Research. 

I got involved with the voting issues back in the very early 

2000s when, like a number of other computer scientists, we 

realized that computers were being brought into our elections but 

sometimes not in a very positive way. Computers can really 

contribute a lot to elections, but they have to be used properly. 

So when paperless voting machines, which are basically 

paperless computers, were introduced and widely purchased, that 

got us very concerned, because there was no way to check on the 

results. So I’m sure you all have heard of the paper trail, blah, blah, 

blah. Well, you know, we were the ones who started yelling and 

screaming about that except it should be paper ballots, not paper 

trail. 

I believe that the best way to push back on the whole Stop 

the Steal movement is by having transparent and secure and 

accurate elections. Transparent so that citizens can see that the 

results have been correctly obtained. That means paper ballots, 

strong chain of custody, and rigorous post-election ballot audits to 

check on those computers that count our ballots because scanners 

are computers. And I’ll stop there. 

MR. STARK: 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi. I’m Philip Stark. I’m a Professor of Statistics at 

University of California at Berkeley. I’ve been on the Board since 

2016. I guess I represent the House Minority Leader currently. 

In 2007, as an outgrowth of work for the California Secretary 

of State’s Office, I invented something called risk limiting audits, 

which are now endorsed by the National Academies and are either 

authorized or required by, I think, about 15 states. I’ve conducted 

the first dozen or so pilots of those in a couple of states. I’ve 

helped any number of states write legislation around this kind of 

thing. 

In 2012, together with David Wagner, I introduced the idea of 

evidence-based elections. It’s the basic idea that it’s not enough 

for election officials to figure out who really won. They also need to 

provide convincing, affirmative public evidence that they found who 

really won. And all my thinking around elections is really organized 

around that idea. We have to run elections in such a way that 

people have a reasonable basis for believing that the outcome is 

right. 

And I could talk more about technical details, but I’ll pass it 

on to Chris Walker. 

MS. WALKER: 

Chris Walker, Jackson County Clerk from the beautiful State 

of Oregon. I’m very happy to be part of this Board. I believe I was 

36 
 

 

 

appointed in 2019 to replace the amazing Linda von Nessi, who 

was also an original member from New Jersey. She’s still working 

hard but decided to bow-out back then, so I’m really honored to be 

able to replace her on this Board. 

I love all the comments that people have said concerning 

elections, and I hear you. I was hired in 1995, entry level, just data 

entry into our office, and then in 2008 was appointed when my clerk 

retired and then duly elected in November of that year, so 15 years 

elect county clerk. 

I’m truly a grassroots effort here. I was born and raised in 

Talent, Oregon, a very small, 4,000-people community where I live, 

but we continue our good works years later here in the office. And I 

also agree with the comments, the County Clerk Elections Official is 

but one role that we have. We also act as the Recorder, deeds and 

property records, marriage licensing, board of property tax appeals 

hearings, as well as archive services, so this is but one faction of 

our roles that we hold within the State of Oregon. 

One of my pet peeves, too, and I guess pet peeves, one of 

my things I’d like to see change is, of course, election funding 

consistent, regular, and timely. We are one of the offices that we 

are expected to be self-supporting, so we pay for all of our elections 

based on the recording fund, and right now, current moment, we 

are probably three-quarters of a million in red this year, so our 

37 
 

 

 

 

general fund is having to backfill. We also lost two people recently 

in our county clerks recording and elections program, so instead of 

eight people, we now have six people to do all elections, as well as 

all the other functions that we have. So it’s going to be a very 

challenging year next year leading into a presidential election year, 

but without stable funding and the mortgage rates going down, this 

is our reality. 

Now, not every Oregon county budget’s that way, but 

ultimately, it does result in that, because every County Clerk’s office 

does have to be backfilled due to the recording fund lowering. 

So anyway, just one of my items I would like to bring up is 

about the funding. And the advocacy here at this level is amazing, 

so thank you so much. Oh, and I as well was with IGO. I think I 

mentioned that. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Good morning. I’m Cheryl Kagan. I always introduce myself 

as saying I’m very proud to be the Senator for Gaithersburg and 

Rockville but in a national group, you probably don’t know where 

that is, but it’s suburban Maryland outside of here. Very proud to 

be part of our Maryland contingent with Linda Lamone and then 

Alisoun McLaughlin is going to be joining us in a bit. 

I started my political career doing election stuff, working on 

elections, and I now Vice Chair of the committee and kind of the 

38 
 

 

 

point person on elections. My committee handles all elections stuff. 

And our fabulous new governor, Wes Moore, just signed all the 

election bills yesterday, including a whole lot of mine. 

I am here, representing NCSL, the National Conference of 

State Legislatures, and we’ve got one D and one R and look 

forward to bringing the local voice. 

I have worked on issues about funding, shared state/county 

funding, transparency, accountability, and Maryland was the only 

state in the country, until the law was signed yesterday after it was 

vetoed last year by our former governor, the prohibitive counting, 

processing, canvasing mail-in ballots until after election day, which 

meant really long delays in certifying our election results. So we’re 

starting to fix and update some of our stuff. 

And I would just close by saying that I had an intern research 

the members of this commission, and all of you are so impressive, 

and I’m looking forward to learning from you all and being a part of 

this, so thanks very much. 

MR. FERRARESE: 

My name is Tom Ferrarese, and I was the former 

Commissioner of Monroe County, New York -- upstate New York, 

Rochester -- for about 20 years. Prior to that, I was with actually 

Chase Bank for about 25 years in a technical area, managing 

several of their clients or applications. I’ve actually been involved in 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the election process since the mid-’70s and specifically with the 

Board of Elections and their various activities. 

As the Commissioner in Monroe County, I also served as the 

Chair of the Executive Committee of the Commissioners State 

Association in New York for eight years. I was known for 

technology, bringing new ideas to the table. That’s something that I 

feel strongly about. We actually, 20 years ago, were posting online 

the information about people getting absentee ballots, whether we 

receive them back, if they were cast okay, all of that kind of stuff. 

We were providing sample ballots 20 years ago. We really tried to 

kind of put the information out there. 

I feel strongly that we need to work with community groups, 

as was mentioned down here, be very transparent with them, 

actually bring them into the process in terms of what we do. I also 

felt very strongly about making sure that the press had an open 

door. I invited the press often to come in and to watch, to see, to 

understand what we were doing. I also challenged them at that 

point to then make sure that they put it out there, even as boring as 

it might be, because very often, that’s what they discovered when 

they could actually see the inside. 

I think we really have got to convince people that elections 

are secure, are safe, and that means that we really have to make 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

sure that we’re providing a process by which they can see that and 

feel involved and part of it. 

MR. WIEDMANN: 

Good morning. I’m Scott Wiedmann with the Federal Voting 

Assistance Program. I’m currently the Acting Director of that 

program. I’ve been with the program since 1993. I’ve had the 

privilege of working with every elections commissioner over the 

years as well and look forward to working with this committee as 

well just to help facilitate that communication between voters and 

the election officials, helping to make sure the election officials 

know the resources that we have available for them. Thank you. 

MR. GLORIA: 

Good morning. My name is Joseph Gloria. I am currently 

the new Chief Executive Officer for operations with the election 

center and serve as their representative here along with Dean 

Logan, who cannot be here today. 

I began working in elections back in 1992 in the State of 

New Mexico, Dona Ana County. I started as a voting machine 

technician, not long after moved to Clark County, Nevada, where I 

worked and retired, moving from a voting machine technician up to 

the position of Registrar of Voters. 

I hope to add value in all discussion related to elections, but 

in particular, in my experience in Clark County, I think we all want to 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

work towards transparency for all voters, for everybody who’s 

concerned about what the processes are and upholding the 

integrity of the process, and I think, though, it’s also very important 

that we work to create a safe and secure environment for all of our 

election officials and the poll workers who are challenged to work at 

the polls. 

So I look forward to conversations in those areas, and thank 

you for having me here. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I believe we’re going to go one or two more, and then we’re 

going to stop for the Congressman’s remarks. 

MR. FRID: 

Okay. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Two more. 

MR. FRID: 

Good morning, Board of Advisors. My name is Steven Frid. 

I am the new Executive Director of the EAC. It’s a pleasure to be 

here. I started my elections career in 2023. 

[Laughter] 

MR. FRID: 

So very, very early in my career. I have a 15-year 

government career, and I guess what I’m looking forward to, over 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

the next two days, is meeting most of you and talking about the 

great work that the agency has been doing in elections. So thank 

you. 

MR. BERKE: 

Good morning. My name is Elliot Berke. I apologize for 

being late. I had to get a third epidural in my back, and if any of 

you have ever had a bulging disc, you would realize that it is worth 

being late for even an important meeting like this today. 

I am Speaker McCarthy’s appointee on the Board of 

Advisors. I’m on my fourth term. I’ve been involved in election 

integrity issues for over 25 years. I run war rooms at the national 

and state level and practice law at a firm called Berke-Farah. 

Speaker McCarthy cares deeply about election integrity 

issues, going back to his time as a staffer on the House 

Administration Committee. I share his concerns about 

transparency and verifiable transparency in elections, and I look 

forward to continuing to work with all of you. Thanks. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Good morning. My name is John Fogarty. I’m an attorney in 

private practice in Chicago, Illinois. I practice full-time election law 

on the state level and on the federal level. I have, for 15 years or 

so, been heavily involved in election administration issues on behalf 

of clients in Illinois. I can relate to, and I’d like to amplify some of 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the prior comments made by some of the others, beginning with 

member Cleta Mitchell. 

From what I see, it is a good thing that individuals are paying 

much more attention to the election processes. It’s fantastic. I 

think it’s what we want. It’s what we should want. By the same 

token, as counsel to a lot of very interested individuals, I 

understand very well, and I take great pride in, maintaining 

relationships with election administrators. It’s crucial that they are 

able to do their jobs. 

So I see this committee as straddling those two values, and I 

am here to give you the benefit of the regulated community’s 

experiences and also not to belabor any further points, as the 

ranking member has arrived, but thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Mr. Fogarty. 

We’re going to turn it back to Commissioner Palmer, who’s 

going to introduce our illustrious speaker for today. 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION MAJORITY REMARKS 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to introduce 

Congressman Bryan Steil. First elected in 2018, 

Congressman Bryan Steil represented Wisconsin’s 1st 

44 
 

 

 

Congressional District for the U.S. House of Representatives. In 

2023, Bryan was appointed chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration. This committee oversees federal election law, 

House of Representatives operations, Legislative Branch oversight, 

and Capitol Security. 

Bryan is focused on the ensuring the House is open, secure, 

and accountable to the American people and on strengthening 

America’s trust in our elections. Bryan has previously served as 

ranking member on the Elections Subcommittee last Congress. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you very much. You mentioned in your intro at last 

Congress I served as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Elections, I always like to tell people that we never had one 

dissenting vote on the subcommittee in the minority, but that was 

because I was the only member of the Subcommittee on Elections, 

so Congressman G. K. Butterfield was the chair of that committee 

and used it kind of as an opportunity to kind of explore ways that 

we can work to improve our elections relationship. Now he’s 

missed in Congress, as he’s moved on into the private sector, but I 

say that jokingly. 

As we look at our opportunity here, I think we have a great 

opportunity to continue to look at our elections and election 

45 
 

 

integrity, how do you make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. And 

in this new role as chairman of the Committee on House 

Administration, which is oversight over federal election law as it 

relates to the House, we have an opportunity to really dig into that. 

One of the things I think that’s really important is that we 

maintain our federalist approach. I think one of the real strengths in 

the American election system is that it is state and locally run, that it 

is not federally run, and so as you look at the legislation that we put 

forward with the ACE Act, I think that’s one of the key defining 

features of it, versus some of the other legislation that we’ve seen 

in particular over the last Congress, is that it maintains a true 

federalist approach. 

The chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Elections this 

cycle, now that I’m the chair of the full committee, is 

Congresswoman Laurel Lee. Some of you may know her. She 

was Secretary of State of Florida and managed and oversaw 

Florida’s election system, so she’s incredibly knowledgeable on this 

topic and has real substantive background, which gives us a real 

opportunity, I think, to have a robust agenda on the Subcommittee 

on Elections. 

One of the first hearings that we will be holding this 

upcoming week is the American Confidence in Elections Act, which 

is the ACE Act, which is what I was referencing earlier, a bill that I 

46 
think actually provides our states with a lot of tools and resources, 

and it also sets kind of a gold standard as to how we can operate 

our elections, a real comprehensive approach to implementing kind 

of key election integrity reforms and using, in many ways, the 

District of Columbia to serve as a model for commonsense reforms 

that I think then could be utilized across the country. 

This bill is based on, and in many ways is, the work product 

of the former Ranking Member Rodney Davis from Illinois, who I 

know some of you in this room know, and it -- I think as we went 

through that process of drafting this legislation last cycle, making 

refinements this Congress, we’ve really leaned in heavily on state 

legislatures officials, folks like yourselves, who have been able to 

provide input on this bill. I hope you take the opportunity to 

continue to do that as we move forward through what I view as a 

regular order process, meaning substantively using the 

subcommittee and committee process in the House of 

Representatives to take a bill, dive in, talk to experts from across an 

array of backgrounds and experiences and utilizing your ideas, your 

suggestions, as well as others, other stakeholders, to find ways to 

maybe improve or finesse this bill to make it work even better. 

And I broke down the ACE Act. I look at it as kind of three 

main pillars. The first pillar, providing states with tools that they can 

use to boost voter confidence, removing some outdated federal 

47 
 

 

 

 

policies that get in the way. I’ll kind of go through some examples 

here in a second, but one of the reasons I think it’s so important to 

work to enhance voter confidence is I think we continue to see a 

correlation between confidence in elections and voter turnout. 

So I think we saw that in states like Georgia, where you have 

enhanced voter integrity provisions be put in place. We’ve heard 

some on the left say that that would actually decrease voter 

participation. I think actually the empirical data says otherwise. 

The empirical data actually shows that more people voted in 

Georgia, and as you look at a lot of people’s experience with voting, 

people felt actually really good about the process, and that’s across 

a wide array of demographic groups, which I think is actually really 

important. I’m a firm believer that the more people that participate 

in our democratic process, the better off that we are, so I think 

that’s a key component of this. 

How does this assist states? It provides assistance and 

resources, gives things like -- a lot of states use Real ID as proof of 

citizenship and it provides resources to the EAC to allow it to focus 

really on the three key areas that I think are essential for the EAC, 

which is equipment testing and certification, grants disbursement 

and auditing, and the clearinghouse, which we’ll be modernizing in 

conjunction with bipartisan EAC Standards Board. I think it’ll 

enhance the federal forum that will encourage information-sharing 

48 
 

 

among states to help them develop and share best practices, again 

kind of looking back to the core federalist principles, allowing states 

to show those best practices, rather than substantively mandating 

them from a federal perspective. 

Second, I think Congress has a constitutional responsibility 

to show the District of Columbia is governed effectively, and I think 

we’ve seen historically some challenges in the District of 

Columbia’s election administration, and so to better serve D.C. 

voters, we really implement election integrity measures outlined 

model state legislation and so allowing, hopefully, D.C. to really 

serve as an example of commonsense forums for across the 

country. So in there, you’ll see things like requiring photo ID, a vote 

in person, or to request an absentee, maintenance of voter lists, 

addressing some ballot-harvesting concerns that we have, 

prohibiting unsolicited mail ballots, different than solicited mail 

ballots. I think that’s an important distinction. 

The third pillar is really focused in on protecting free speech, 

and so I think it’s really important that we’re protecting all 

Americans’ First Amendment rights to speak and particular solicit 

some political views in support of candidates, causes, organizations 

without fear of retribution. 

And so that, for me, is kind of the crux of the bill. We’re 

going to be bringing this forward in the weeks ahead. We’re going 

49 
 

 

 

to have a series of hearings on the legislation, and I’d encourage 

you and other stakeholders to engage and participate. The goal 

here is to produce a piece of legislation that actually really 

strengthens our election system across the United States, allows 

enhancement of voter integrity provisions, and again, with a 

broader understanding and a goal in my perspective is that we put 

in place what are pretty commonsense voter integrity provisions. 

We can improve voter confidence in our elections. And again, I do 

believe that the empirical data continues to show, as we strengthen 

voter integrity provisions, we actually increase voter participation, 

increase voter turnout, which I think is to the net benefit of our great 

country’s democracy. 

And so I really appreciate everybody’s willingness to let me 

come in and share my work in the committee and look forward to 

an ongoing dialogue and relationship with pretty much everybody in 

this room, but also stakeholders across the country, as we look for 

ways to continue to enhance and improve our election systems. 

Thank you very much. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Congressman. We 

really appreciate it. Are you open to a few questions? 

MR. STEIL: 

Happy to. Absolutely. 

50 
 

 

 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So it looks like you want me to take care of it? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, is there any members that would like to ask some 

questions or ask a question of the Congressman? 

MS. WALKER: 

Thank you for being here, Congressman. Chris Walker, 

Jackson County Clerk, Oregon. So just one reminder when we’re 

doing any elections bill, there is no one-size-fits-all throughout the 

whole country, so I think we just need to be very mindful of that, 

and that would be really appreciated. My state, of course, was the 

original vote-by-mail state, so I wanted to ask a little bit about the --

you talked about solicited versus unsolicited mail ballots, which 

would be a huge concern, because that’s the sole way to conduct 

elections in Oregon. We’ve not had a polling place election since 

1998, among other states, such as Utah, Colorado, Washington 

state and others who have moved to all-mail platforms. 

And that is huge in the one-size-fits-all thing. I know some of 

the bills, although I think well-meaning and appreciated, would 

actually create challenges for what we already do within our state, 

51 
so I just wanted to find out a little bit more about that and what your 

thoughts are. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you very much. Great question. So let me dive in 

and maybe provide a little more clarity. So I think the federalist 

approach works really well, so Oregon should do what’s right for 

Oregon. Wisconsin’s going to do what’s right for Wisconsin, my 

home state, and then we’d run 50 states across the country. I’ve 

actually learned, interestingly in this job, and many of you would 

already know, the diversity of how we run elections across this 

country is more significant than, I think, the average citizen 

appreciates. A state like North Dakota doesn’t even have a voter 

roll, right? I mean, they run a completely different operation, which 

is very challenging to think about if you’re from the State of 

Wisconsin and you weren’t involved in understanding the federal 

election laws or election law writ large and think how do you run 

elections without that. Or in a state that runs only on mail, right, I 

mean some things are intuitive to you that may not be to other 

states. 

So I think the core principle here is we keep our federalist 

system: no federal mandate as to how any given state operates 

their elections. The reference to the unsolicited ballot is I 

personally have a challenge to that, so if I was the state legislature 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the State of Wisconsin, I’d have my opinion on that. That does 

not mean I get to enforce my way on the State of Oregon. As it 

relates to the District of Columbia, that’s a different role. I think the 

federal government has a different role as it relates to the District of 

Columbia, and that was the reference point on --

MS. WALKER: 

Okay. 

MR. STEIL: 

-- unsolicited ballots, I don’t love unsolicited ballots, but I don't think 

that I, as a federal legislator, have the authority to dictate how 

Oregon runs their elections or any other given state. I do think 

there is a gold standard opportunity there. 

MS. WALKER: 

That is much appreciated. On a side note, go Pat go soon. 

MR. STEIL: 

There we go. We’ve moved into the Jordan Love era --

MS. WALKER: 

Yes. 

MR. STEIL: 

-- as Aaron Rodgers is moving onto the Jets, so these are big times 

in Wisconsin. 

MS. WALKER: 

Yes. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

MR. SCHOELLER: 

I appreciate your federalist approach. One challenge that I 

do have, as an elected official, is during our federal elections, when 

one state can continue to accept ballots mailed in after a longer 

period of time with another state. That, ultimately, can affect the 

balance in terms of who’s in control in Congress during midterm 

elections. I don't want the federal government to necessarily 

dictate that, but I also have great concerns in terms of the impact of 

that in terms of one state to another and how it affects the outcome 

of our national elections. 

MR. STEIL: 

I share your concern, and I appreciate that feedback, and 

that’s always kind of this tension, right, between --

MR. SCHOELLER: 

Right. 

MR. STEIL: 

-- being federalism and a one-size-fits-all approach, but I do share 

your concern where states have elections that the receipt of ballots 

continues beyond the election date, and I think that does cause 

some concern. I think in some ways it causes concern for voters 

across the country who may not appreciate the rules and nuance of 

any other given state, and again, that ability to improve confidence 

54 
 

 

 

in voters I think is actually really important to enhance participation, 

so I appreciate your comment on that. 

MS. SIMONS: 

So I come from California, where we accept ballots past 

election day, and I wanted to push back a little bit on that comment 

you just made. There’s very good reason. There are very good 

reasons for doing that. For one thing, it makes it much easier for 

voters overseas, especially military voters, to have their ballots 

counted. And if you insist that the ballots be received by election 

day, many of those ballots won’t get counted. 

So I’m sure, like the rest of us, you support our military, and I 

would hope that you would also therefore encourage, if we’re going 

to have a national standard, it should be that the ballot is 

postmarked by election day but there’s a reasonable period, like a 

week or so after which it can be received, and that would enhance 

voting for military and overseas voters in particular, so I would like 

to encourage that. 

MR. STEIL: 

Appreciate the feedback. So in this legislation, there’s no 

forced requirement on any of our 50 states. 

MS. SIMONS: 

I was just pushing back on your comments. 

MR. STEIL: 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, no, understood. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

A question here from Jim Dickson. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Thank you, Congressman, for your interest and your 

participation. I have two quick questions. What is the actual name 

of the bill and its number? 

MR. STEIL: 

I’m going to look back to Caleb Hays who’s standing behind 

you if you know the number, but it’s --

MR. HAYS: 

The American Confidence in Elections Act. 

MR. STEIL: 

Yep. 

MR. HAYS: 

It was 8528 last Congress, and as Mr. Steil said, we will be 

introducing an updated version shortly, so within the next several 

weeks. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you. 

MR. DICKSON: 

56 
 

 

 

 

Thank you. And my second question is, when you talk about 

a problem with unsolicited ballots, could you define what that 

means? 

MR. STEIL: 

Define what an unsolicited ballot is? 

MR. DICKSON: 

Yes. 

MR. STEIL: 

Whether or not the voter requested to receive a ballot by 

mail. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Okay. So in your legislation, the voter has to request a ballot 

by mail. The election office cannot send ballots to voters who have 

not solicited it. Is that the gist? 

MR. STEIL: 

That is accurate. Caleb Hays is the election law attorney on 

this, and so just because this is going to get technical, if you would 

like to come up, Caleb, and get in the nuance of that --

[Laughter] 

MR. STEIL: 

No, no, I just want to make sure we get it nuanced and 

accurate. I mean, top level, that’s accurate, but again, it relates to 

election administration in Washington, D.C., so just to make 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

clarification here, maintaining federalist principles, I think that is the 

gold standard, that you don’t have unsolicited ballots being mailed 

out. It does not mean that this legislation, if enacted as written or 

as reintroduced as written, but it does not mean that that forces that 

upon any of our 50 states. So I just want to be clear as we’re 

talking about this, because sometimes we step away from the 

federalism approach. This addresses elections in D.C. If you want 

to comment on the nuance of that distinction because I think that is 

worthwhile, feel free. 

MR. HAYES: 

Our only mandates are in the District of Columbia. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Period. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Senator Kagan, do you have a question? 

MS. KAGAN: 

Thank you so much. Cheryl Kagan, State Senator from 

Maryland. The latest phrase that we hear a lot of, and I don't know 

if it’s an ALEC talking point or whatever, is about ballot harvesting, 

and I wonder if you could share, either you or Caleb, talk about 

what you’re thinking about, because sometimes one person wants 

to drop off grandma’s, you know, ballot, too, or at a retirement 

58 
 

 

community or something being able to drop them off at the drop-off 

box or at the local Boards of Elections, and I just wonder if you 

could speak to that. 

MR. STEIL: 

I think the real crux here is the paid and coordinated activity, 

and I think that is the concern that I and many others have in states 

with competitive elections. There’s a lot of activity around paid and 

coordinated activity, and I think that’s right for either people to not 

be confident as to what’s occurring as those ballots are being 

handed to a paid political worker versus, you know, maybe your 

mother who is ill and needs you to literally walk to the mailbox. I 

think there’s some distinctions in this space, and as we go through 

this, this is where your feedback is very helpful, Senator, right? I 

mean, we want to make sure that somebody who is ill or sick is 

able to obviously have their ballot mailed, and I think that’s 

appropriate and reasonable. And I think that’s a substantive and 

clear distinction to me from a paid, organized operation to collect 

ballots, where whether or not that ballot’s done in the confidential 

manner that one should be able to fill out their ballot is a distinction. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Just to follow-up, if I could, Mr. Chair. So totally great. I 

think everyone from any party and any interest would support 

confidential and autonomy and all that when voting, but the whole 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

idea of using that phrase and just the distinction, though, of paid 

and coordinated, just want to make sure, again, the nursing home, 

the community organization where no one is being paid but they’re 

offering a convenient service, I just would want to make sure that 

that’s not lumped in with something that may sound more nefarious 

to you or your colleagues. 

MR. STEIL: 

Appreciate that feedback, Senator. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Thanks for being 

here. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Any other questions? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

John Fogarty. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

being here. Appreciate it. I’m John Fogarty from Chicago, Illinois, 

appointed by your predecessor, Congressman Davis. 

And I’d like to push back a little bit on the notion that 

accepting ballots well after the date of the election, vote-by-mail 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ballots. Well, I’d like to stand up for the fact that when you accept 

ballots for two weeks after an election, as we do in Illinois, there is 

a consequence to that, and while we’re all for convenience, 

certainly for overseas and members of the military, when, you 

know, regular people, people not like us, who are watching every 

ballot as it comes in, but regular people see what an election result 

is on election night and then see, two weeks later, something has 

happened, where ballots have come in, and not always in 

circumstances that are transparent. I’m not suggesting that 

nefarious things happen, but just that process, in and of itself, 

erodes voter confidence. And that’s something that is fundamental 

and something I very much appreciated you hearing was one of the 

pillars of the ACE Act. 

And so, my question is what other tools do you have or what 

do you suggest in the ACE Act that would boost voter confidence? 

MR. STEIL: 

Well, maybe off the cuff, I’d look at voter ID, and so this, 

again, uses that as the gold standard here in the District of 

Columbia. We have states that have it and states that don’t have it. 

And again, going back to your comment, Mr. Fogarty, is we improve 

voter confidence in the system. And again, there’s some people 

here, right, who know every nuance of your given state or multiple 

states. I’d say the average voter doesn’t. They don’t understand 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

the nuance of the work and the effort that goes into conducting and 

operating an election. So I’d say that’s a general assumption 

across the board. 

And so then, I’d look and say where are there areas that are 

pretty commonsense, where you can put in place voter integrity 

provisions with a goal of increasing voter confidence, because 

again, my belief is as you improve voter confidence, you actually 

improve participation and turnout, which should be a mutual goal, I 

think, held by almost everyone. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Thank you. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I think we have time for about one more question, maybe 

two at the most, about five minutes left. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So I saw Cleta’s hand up for --

MS. MITCHELL: 

Thank you. Thank you, Representative, for being with us. 

I’m Cleta Mitchell. I serve on the Advisory Board as an appointee 

of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

I want to just make one, quick comment. I want to thank you 

for Caleb Hays and Thomas Lane and Hillary and Alice. You have 

a wonderful staff, and they’ve been wonderful about working with 

and helping to educate volunteers and citizen activists on the 

weekly calls that I do, and I just want to tell you how much we 

appreciate their outreach and their hard work. 

I could ask a lot of questions, but one thing that someone 

sent me this morning that the Center for Internet Security, which is 

a nonprofit, which is largely funded by taxpayer funds from CISA 

has announced they’re going to develop standards for e-poll books. 

And when I was looking at the article, I’m thinking, well, I thought 

that was on our agenda to discuss that. So I would hope that one 

of the things, as you move forward in the bill, the hearings, and all, 

is to clarify that the organization, the agency of the federal 

government that has the responsibility and the authority to issue 

guidelines and that sort of things is the Election Assistance 

Commission and not CISA and not DHS and not CIS and that 

appropriate funding follow that responsibility. 

But I think it’s confusing to election officials and all to have 

private organizations announcing that they’re going to issue 

certification standards for any kind of voting technology, and I think 

that that undermines public confidence in the voting process. 

MR. STEIL: 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Mitchell, thanks for the comment. I totally agree. Caleb 

Hays and the broad staff that we have, we are blessed, because 

he’s whispering things in my ear as you’re talking to me. No, but in 

all seriousness, we are blessed with an incredibly talented staff in 

the Committee on House Administration in the House, not lost on 

me, and not lost on you, it sounds like. 

Agree with your comment in making sure we get this right. 

The bill does have that in there explicitly as it relates to cyber, and 

so, I think it’s one of the things that we’re going to have to continue 

to keep an eye on. That’s not only true in elections. That’s true 

across the board when you look at some of the cyber challenges 

we have. We’ve had that in the House of Representatives as it 

relates to a datalink with D.C. Health Link, because Members of 

Congress are on Obamacare for reasons that go back years, but 

that is a challenge we face as a country. 

But as it relates to elections, I agree with you, and this bill 

would do that. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Thank you. 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Mr. Cramer? Is this the last one, Mr. Moore? 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That’s it, yes. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

All right. Mr. Cramer. 

MR. STEIL: 

Make it good, Mr. Cramer. 

MR. CRAMER: 

I’m a proud recipient of Aaron Rodgers and being a Jets fan. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

So I would say it’s a very easy question. Caleb, it’s good to 

see you again. I’m here on behalf, also, of NACo , the counties’ 

role in election administration, and the ACE Act would love to see 

more of the highlight of the importance of counties with elections, 

because a lot of things are done at the state level, even without 

county input. And the local jurisdictions really care about the 

election administration with the security of our elections, the 

integrity of our elections. So with that, would love for the ACE Act 

to have a county perspective and maybe even a lens on that, 

because I know it's a lot of state issue things, especially if the state 

doesn’t adopt the standards, funding kind of goes away. So just 

know that there are counties. 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I represent South Carolina, with Charleston County, a 

beautiful place to retire and play golf, so you’re always welcome. 

But one of the things that, as an election administrator, that I never 

thought when I first joined this, because I used to be on the other 

side of it with campaigns and elections, was the threats that come 

to election officials. 

I have been have been threatened. I’m in a very red state. I 

am in a purple county, but I have been threatened in 2020 on 

election day. And I have a young son, another one coming on the 

way, and I don't want to have to go to work fearing for my security. 

And it’s not a fabricated thing. So I would hope that any legislation, 

federally, would support the role of election administrators and the 

job we do, because yes, on the front page of the paper or on any 

news channel, if an election administration official does something 

incorrectly, yes, that should be highlighted and how we improve on 

those things. 

But for every one of those, there are thousands that are 

doing their job outstanding, and we need to support those people 

every single day. And my staff of 19, I care about their safety. You 

know, we don’t have bulletproof glass. We don’t have a detector 

for knives or guns in our building, and I think about that every single 

day about those protections for the people that serve us. They’re 

66 
 

 

 

 

 

public officials. They make sure that we’re able to exercise our 

right to vote. 

So my question is -- you know I’m going to end it with a 

question, as promised -- do you foresee emphasizing that county 

rule and giving the protections to election officials on the House 

side, because I know the Senate side, they’re going to introduce 

something to protect election officials, so would love to get your 

thoughts on that, and then we can talk about Aaron Rodgers 

tonight, you know? 

[Laughter] 

MR. STEIL: 

Thank you very much, Mr. Cramer, and your winters are not 

nearly cold enough for me to go retire. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

We get down to the 30s sometimes. 

MR. STEIL: 

Cross-country skiing sounds terrible down there. In a 

serious sense, we run our elections at the municipal level, so 

Wisconsin’s unique in the sense that it’s not a county-run operation. 

It’s run at the clerk level, at the municipal level, so I appreciate the 

nuance. 

67 
 

 

 

And I think that’s some of what’s interesting, right, is that as 

we step back and reflect about the strength of our federalist 

system, every state in the United States runs their elections a little 

bit differently. South Carolina, it sounds like, relies heavily on the 

county level, and I think we have an opportunity, as we go through 

our hearings, which highlights what’s working well and identifying 

where we have room for improvement, we’ll be exploring what each 

of our 50 states do. And many of our states rely heavily on a 

county-driven or a more localized approach, again like Wisconsin. I 

think we have a real opportunity to highlight that, rather than just 

identify states that operate a little bit more on the state level. 

As it relates to your comment on security, I couldn’t agree 

more. I think we broadly have a challenge in our society writ large 

on political discourse across the spectrum, where people want to 

jump to language that is not helpful to actually address and solve 

problems. I think we see that across the board. I don't think that’s 

held by any given political philosophy, and so, I think we have a 

great opportunity to do what you said, in not only, identify areas 

where we do see challenges, but also highlight the great work that 

so many of our election administrators are doing, as well as our 

volunteers that help run our elections across the country. 

If we’re wrapping up, I’ll just say thanks for having me in, and 

I’d love for your continued engagement in this process. We’re 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

looking to try to enhance the integrity of elections and increase 

voter participation, and your feedback in this process is really 

helpful, and so we’ll be continuing to have hearings, and I’d 

encourage you to continue your participation, and thank you very 

much for having me in today. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you so much for coming. Thank you. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I want to thank the chairman for coming, as well as the DFO 

officer for facilitating that lively conversation that we had here. As 

we ask the members of the Board, take a quick stretch. If you want 

to go ahead and leave the room or take a break while we’re going 

to go into bylaws next. It’s a five-minute break so we can regroup. 

Please be back at 10:40, please, for our bylaws conversation. 

*** 

[The Board recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:40 a.m.] 

*** 

BYLAWS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND VOTE 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Well, just to let you all know, you just had your break that’s 

going to happen at 11:15, and then we’ll go straight through lunch if 

that’s okay with everybody, but it was a good break to have. We 

69 
 

 

 

are now going to approach the part of the agenda where we’re 

going to be discussing bylaws, and this section will be coordinated 

by our secretary, Mark Ritchie, so at this, I’d like to recognize 

Secretary Mark Ritchie for the discussion of the Bylaw 

Subcommittee. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So two amendments to the 

bylaws are going to be presented today, and you’ve gotten them by 

mail and e-mail correspondence for consideration and for vote. 

Elements of these amendments, some in full and some in part, 

were first discussed last year at the 2022 annual meeting. Some of 

you were here for that. Some of you were not. They’ve since been 

considered, altered, edited. One is still on the table, and we’ll talk 

about that, and these are being advanced by the Bylaws 

Subcommittee. 

I want to thank everybody on that committee. We had a 

multi-step process, and I feel like, in the end, we had a very strong 

outcome that I’m proud to propose today. These amendments 

were shared fully in February, and so as was reported earlier, 

we’ve met the various guidelines. 

So the first of the proposed bylaw amendment, so let’s just 

call it number one, is on the screen. This is a continuation of our 

discussion. It changes the executive officer position of the vice 

70 
 

 

 

 

chair to chair-elect. Upon this completion of the one-year term of 

chair, the chair-elect shall automatically become chair, so we know 

and know that process for the following term. Each year, 

nominations will be solicited for the offices of chair-elect and 

secretary. The change would go into effect for the 2024 executive 

officers for election. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn this back over to you for the 

conduction of the discussion, consideration, and vote. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Thank you. No substantial amendments changes 

from the floor will be accepted at this meeting, but the floor will be 

open for debate on the proposed amendments to the bylaws before 

the vote. Should substantive amendments or changes be offered, 

a motion to recommit the bylaws to the Bylaws Committee and/or 

consideration of a future meeting may be in order. So the bylaws 

amendments can be adopted by this body by a two-thirds vote of 

the quorum that we have. 

I will now open the floor for debate. I’ll turn the questioning 

over to Acting General Counsel. Do you have a comment at this 

time? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

71 
 

 

You don’t? Okay. The floor is open for debate on the 

amendment. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Yeah, Jenny Carroll. I had a quick question, and this is a 

point of clarification, and then I may have a further question. So the 

proposal, as I read it in what was sent to us contains amendments 

to portions two through seven of the section and then continues into 

nominations. Are we only considering right now the initial 

discussion contained in two on the completion of the one-year term 

of the chair or the chair-elect automatically becoming chair, or are 

we considering the entire proposal? 

The entire proposal? All right. So then I do have some 

questions on that. So I was unable to locate the proposed changes 

from last year that we debated on this, but I did review my notes 

and compare it to what’s proposed here. It appears as if this is a 

repetition of proposal six that did fail at the last meeting, and there 

were questions, I think, raised in the discussion of proposal six 

about the value of having elections for each position each year in 

an effort to encourage more people to run and encourage turnover. 

I had also raised a concern during that meeting that each 

position seemed like it had a specific set of roles and 

responsibilities and that it was certainly possible that an individual 

who might make a very good vice-chair in that role might not be 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

someone whom I would’ve elected as chair or voted for as chair, so 

I had some concerns about automatic appointment or rolling over to 

chair. 

My concerns that I raised last year with regard to this, not 

encouraging more people to run and not encouraging different folks 

and different perspectives from joining in these important election 

positions and sharing responsibility for these important elected 

positions remain. I don’t feel like they’re answered by this proposal. 

Certainly, if there’s something I’m missing in the edit, because like I 

said, I went on the website. I tried to locate the proposals from last 

year. I was unable to locate them, so I’m just going off my notes, 

so perhaps there’s an edit I’m missing, but my reading of this is this 

is a repetition of what we rejected last year, so I’m not sure why it’s 

coming back to us in the exact same form, and I’d like more 

information about that. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

We had very substantive discussion, and this was the 

consensus decision of the Committee, and we bring it forth for 

consideration of everybody. There’s always tension between sort 

of continuity and stability and knowing where we’re going, and in 

the case of our lives, things happening. And so, having the 

knowledge and having the known succession in mind was the thing 

that was the most important. 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Could I entertain any more comments from people from the 

Bylaws Committee that may want to comment at this point? 

MR. HATCH: 

I was chair of the Bylaws Committee last year when we had 

that discussion, and I believe -- and I could be wrong -- but I believe 

the proposal last year was that there would be a full secession --

succession. We don’t want to use secession very often in D.C. 

here. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

There was a full succession, starting not just from chairelect but from early on, secretary or something like that, and I 

believe this year’s is different from last year’s in that it’s just the 

chair-elect moving onto the chair, so that would be a small 

distinction and would address some of your concerns that it’s not 

just somebody just running, going through the ranks. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Any other comments? Jim Dickson. 

MR. DICKSON: 

74 
 

 

 

I’d like to speak in favor of the proposal. I’ve been on this 

Board since it’s inception, and I think having the continuity of the 

vice-chair moving up, bringing with her or him institutional memory 

is very important, and so, I totally support the amendment. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Jim. Commissioner Hovland? 

MR. HOVLAND: 

Thank you. Just to add to what Ricky said here, again, with 

our rotation, I was DFO for much of the year, and my recollection --

and, Ricky, please correct this -- but this was very much a 

compromised position from last year’s conversation. As you noted, 

last year, there would only be one election each year for secretary, 

and then that would rotate all the way through; whereas, this would 

be for two slots each year, with only the chair-elect moving up. And 

so, with only three Executive Board positions, it was sort of finding 

compromise between last year’s conversation, but still maintaining 

that continuity. Is that your recollection as well? 

[No response] 

MR. HOVLAND: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Are there any more comments about amendment number 

one? 

75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. CARROLL: 

Can I make one more comment? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes, ma'am. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Sorry. So I appreciate the clarification, and I understand that 

it’s only one position moving up, and I understand the balance that 

has to be struck between continuity. I remain a bit concerned that, 

again, this is not encouraging different folks to come into positions, 

particularly since it seems like, going back through our history, 

often the same folks repeat in positions. 

I think the value of this body is there are a lot of us with a lot 

of different perspectives. I think that is being undervalued if we’re 

just promoting continuity for the sake of continuity. If we’re worried 

about continuity, one possibility would be longer terms of office. I 

know that was something that was discussed briefly last year, as 

per my notes, so I don't know if there’s other things to think about. 

You know, obviously, there is, I agree, some value to having 

folks in office and seeing how things play out over a period of time, 

but I just worry that we’re overvaluing continuity for the sake of 

diversity and opportunities for participation, particularly since my 

own experience has been, it is difficult to participate in this Board, 

and it makes me wonder if we are serving the responsibilities of 

76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

those we’re representing here if we don’t have opportunities to 

serve. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. Any further comments before we go to a vote? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I will now entertain a motion to take a vote to adopt 

amendment number one, proposed bylaw amendment. Is there a 

mover of the motion? 

MR. DICKSON: 

So move. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Moved by Jim Dickson. Is there a second? 

MR. STARK: 

Second. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Phil Stark second. A second motion has been filed. Are 

there any objections to -- there’s move to a second that this body 

vote to adopt the proposed bylaws number one. When you are 

called, please cast your vote, stating aye or nay or abstain. A twothirds majority of those voting in person and by proxy is required to 

approve the bylaws amendment. The roll call will now take place. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

77 
 

 

 

 

Sara, do you have the complete list? Could you call that for 

us? 

MS. BRADY: 

Yep. Okay. So I am going to read members’ names and --

MR. BRATCHER: 

Is questioning over? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, I called for the final. Do you have any more 

comments? 

MR. BRATCHER: 

I have another comment. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Are we allowed to take another question after the 

motion’s been voted? 

Go ahead. Go ahead. 

MR. BRATCHER: 

From what I’ve read of the amendment, it’s just 

nomenclature change, right? We added a position and the name of 

a position and got rid of the vice, right? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, the vice-chairs would now be called the chair-elect. 

That’s the --

MR. BRATCHER: 

78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean that’s the substance of this? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That’s one of the big distinctions of this, yeah. Okay. We’re 

going to go ahead with the roll call. Thank you. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Although, to be clear, that’s not all this amendment does. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I didn’t say it was all. I just said --

MS. CARROLL: 

Okay. But I just want to be clear. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

He’s asking whether --

MS. CARROLL: 

It’s not all it does. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

No, it’s not all it does. Not at all. Roll call, please. 

MS. BRADY: 

So I will call members’ names. If you’re serving as proxy 

and I can make a notation, you are eligible to vote then, as well. 

MS. BRADY: 

Kyle Ardoin. 

MS. WAY: 

Aye. 

79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. BRADY: 

Sarah Ball Johnson. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Elliot Berke. 

MR. BERKE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Kevin Bratcher. 

MR. BRATCHER: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Jenny Carroll. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Nay. 

MS. BRADY: 

Ryan Cowley. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Isaac Cramer. 

MR. CRAMER: 

Aye. 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. BRADY: 

James Dickson. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Thomas Ferrarese. 

MR. FERRARESE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

I apologize if I mispronounce anyone’s name. 

Eric Fey. 

MR. FEY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

John Fogarty. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Joseph Gloria. 

MR. Gloria: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Don Gray. 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Ricky Hatch. 

MR. HATCH: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Robert Heberle. 

MR. HEBERLE: 

Abstain. 

MS. BRADY: 

Chris Herren. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Liz Howard. 

MR. FEY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Hannah Ibanez. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Nay. 

MS. BRADY: 

Keith Ingram. 

MR. INGRAM: 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Cheryl Kagan. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Linda Lamone. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Dean Logan. 

MR. GLORIA: 

Aye. Joseph Gloria, proxy. 

MS. BRADY: 

Cleta Mitchell. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Greg Moore. 

MR. MOORE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Benjamin Nadolsky. 

83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Yea. 

MS. BRADY: 

Anthony Penry. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Mark Ritchie. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Shane Shoeller. 

MR. SHOELLER: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Barbara Simons. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Philip Stark. 

MR. STARK: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Rick Stream. 

84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Christine Walker. 

MS. WALKER: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Tahesha Way. 

MS. WAY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Scott Wiedmann. 

MR. WIEDMANN: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

So with that, we have 26 ayes, and the two-thirds majority 

would have been 21 of the members and proxies. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Let the record reflect, we have 26 ayes, 2 no’s, and one 

abstention. Is that correct? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. Thank you. The chair recognizes Secretary Mark 

Ritchie for the second proposal amendment. 

85 
 

 

 

 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you very much, Chair. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’m sorry. The amendment is adopted first. We will now go 

to the second amendment. Thank you. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

This proposed bylaw amendment we’re going to call number 

two, in summary, it renames the standing Board of Advisors 

Subcommittee, the Voting System Standards Committee, the 

Volunteer Voting Systems Guidelines Committee to align with the 

terminology now used at the EAC. It also replaces member 

representatives on the Subcommittee from the former NACRC and 

IACREOT with a member representative from the International 

Association of Government Officials. A paragraph is also added, 

directing the chair to appoint remaining member representatives to 

the Committee with technical expertise in accessibility and usability, 

election law, including voting rights and voter enfranchisement, 

cybersecurity, election verification, and election audits and election 

technology. 

Turning it back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Secretary Ritchie. We will now open the floor for 

debate on this amendment number two. Is there discussion? 

86 
 

 

 

MS. JOINER: 

Excuse me, Chair. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes, please. 

MS. JOINER: 

Just a point of parliamentary clarification here. I think an 

order would be a motion to entertain this from the table, because 

this was tabled during the last meeting, so I would advise that you 

entertain a motion to take from the table the proposed bylaw 

amendment number two. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you for that, Counsel. I will take your 

recommendation, and we will now open the floor for debate. Are 

we debating putting this back on, or are we just basically 

announcing? 

MS. JOINER: 

No, to get into the parliamentary weeds, first I would advise 

you to call for a motion to take from the table. That motion should 

be seconded, ayes and nays, and then you can take a motion to 

open for debate. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There we go. We will now take a motion to accept this 

amendment from the table, since it was tabled at our previous 

meeting. Is there a motion to do that? 

MR. RITCHIE: 

So moved, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STARK: 

Second. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So moved by Mr. Ritchie. Second by Phil Stark. We are 

now open for discussion of this amendment. 

MS. JOINER: 

Again, apologies. You should now call for a voice vote on 

that. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’m sorry. A voice vote. 

MS. JOINER: 

Ayes or nays. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Ayes or nays. Thank you so much. All those in favor, say 

aye? 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Opposed? 

88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

MS. JOINER: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We are now able to have a discussion. Thank you, 

Counselor. Yes, Jim Dickson? 

MR. DICKSON: 

Yes. I actually like the change in the nomenclature, but my 

question is the previous committee had representation of people 

with disabilities on it. Does this amendment continue that, or is the 

selection of representatives for the disabled community at the 

discretion of some individual? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Mark, did you want to answer that? 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Good question. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That is a good question. Counsel, can I bug you one more 

time on this one? My understanding was that it was adding. 

Who was the chair? You were the chair at the time of this. 

Do you remember? 

89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. HATCH: 

Yeah, I believe it was simply to have that member fall in 

under the accessibility and usability section, so not to add. No, I 

didn’t feel that it was to add an additional member, but for the 

disabled community to have that representation under a small 

bullet, little I. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes, Sara, please. 

MS. BRADY: 

So, reviewing the proposed amendments, it does indicate 

here the chair shall appoint remaining members of the Committee, 

and these members shall include at least one member with 

technical expertise and experience in the areas listed in the 

subsection, and the subsection does include accessibility and 

usability as one of the named. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Yeah. 

MS. BRADY: 

Yep. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, go ahead, Jim. 

MR. DICKSON: 

90 
 

 

 

 

 

I have a concern about lumping accessibility with usability. 

Sometimes those two functions can fit well, but we have had 

experience on the Committee where usability was defined in a way 

that it conflicted with accessibility, so I’m troubled by having one 

person wearing two hats. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I want to have Phil Stark address that issue from the 

Committee. 

MR. STARK: 

Oh, sorry. Microphone. So this is Section (b)(2)(c). It says 

at least one member, excluding the Chair, the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines Committee shall represent a disability advocacy 

group. It’s there. It’s a carveout. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Oh, okay. Thank you, Phil. Then I have no problem. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. Any additional questions on amendment number 

two? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Seeing none, I’ll now entertain a motion to take a vote to 

adopt amendment number two. Is there a motion? 

MS. LAMONE: 

91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So moved by Linda Lamone. Is there a second? 

MR. FERRARESE: 

Second, Ferrarese. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Second, Ferrarese. The motion has been moved and 

second. We’ll now take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Opposed? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Abstentions? 

[No response] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Amendment number two is now adopted. Thank you. 

MS. JOINER: 

Apologies, Chair. Sorry. Me again with parliamentary 

procedure. I believe we need to take a roll call vote on this. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We do need to take a roll call vote? 

MS. JOINER: 

92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

If you can make a roll call vote happen one more time, that’ll 

be fine. 

MS. BRADY: 

One more time. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

MS. BRADY: 

Kyle Ardoin. 

MS. WAY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Sarah Ball Johnson. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Elliot Berke. 

MR. BERKE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Kevin Bratcher. 

MR. BRATCHER: 

93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Jenny Carroll. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Ryan Cowley. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Isaac Cramer. 

MR. CRAMER: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

James Dickson. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Thomas Ferrarese. 

MR. FERRARESE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Eric Fey. 

MR. FEY: 

94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

John Fogarty. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Joseph Gloria. 

MR. Gloria: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Don Gray. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Ricky Hatch. 

MR. HATCH: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Robert Heberle. 

MR. HEBERLE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Chris Herren. 

(No response) 

95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MS. BRADY: 

Liz Howard. 

MR. FEY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Hannah Ibanez. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Yea. 

MS. BRADY: 

Keith Ingram. 

MR. INGRAM: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Cheryl Kagan. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Linda Lamone. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Dean Logan. 

MR. GLORIA: 

96 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Cleta Mitchell. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Gregory Moore. 

MR. MOORE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Benjamin Nadolsky. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Yea. 

MS. BRADY: 

Anthony Penry. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Mark Ritchie. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Shane Shoeller. 

MR. SHOELLER: 

97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Barbara Simons. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Philip Stark. 

MR. STARK: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Rick Stream. 

(No response) 

MS. BRADY: 

Christine Walker. 

MS. WALKER: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Tahesha Way. 

MS. WAY: 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

Scott Wiedmann. 

MR. WIEDMANN: 

98 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye. 

MS. BRADY: 

I show 29 ayes. Surpasses the two-thirds present in person 

and proxy. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Having received the two-thirds votes required for adoption, 

the amendment is now adopted by the Board of Advisors. Is there 

another report from the Secretary? 

MR. RITCHIE: 

No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you for that report, and thank you to the members of 

the Bylaws Committee for your work on this important change to 

our bylaws. 

The Chair now recognizes Vice-Chair Ricky Hatch for a 

report on the Executive Director Search Committee. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 

MR. HATCH: 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it might enliven our meeting a 

little bit if, in all future votes, we say aye like a pirate and yea like an 

old barrister. 

[Laughter] 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. HATCH: 

All those in favor? 

[Chorus of ayes] 

MR. HATCH: 

Okay. This is a report on the Executive Search for the EAC 

Executive Director, and I want to give a huge thank you for all the 

work done by those on the Candidate Evaluation Committee. 

Those are Keith Ingram, Dean Logan, Chris Walker, Tahesha Way, 

Cleta Mitchell, Sarah Johnson, Shane Schoeller, Alisoun 

McLaughlin, and of course, Mark Robbins, as well. 

We had 23 applicants who applied for this position. 

Committee members reviewed each of the 23 résumés and 

applications, along with sometimes voluminous supporting 

documentation. It was not a quick process, nor was it light work. 

Our instructions were to provide a list of candidates of which we 

approved, so kind of like approval voting, and not a ranking of 

candidates, so not like rank choice voting. 

Each candidate was evaluated based on the following 

characteristics, with the most important characteristics being listed 

first. First was experience with the federal paperwork and the 

federal system, managing people, managing programs, managing 

budgets, communication skills, election administration experience, 

political savviness, problem-solving skills, and innovation. 

100 
 

 

 

So in September, we met virtually to discuss each candidate. 

About ten of the applicants clearly did not rate highly, and they 

were excluded fairly quickly. For the remaining 13, we had fairly 

extensive discussions about their skills, experience, and 

characteristics, especially in light of the unique keys to success in 

leading the administrative and management functions of the EAC. 

Mark Robbins was extremely valuable in sharing with us his 

expertise and historical perspective of the unique demands placed 

on this position. 

In the end, we provided the names of nine candidates who 

we felt merited further consideration by the EAC. I tried to come up 

with some kind of joke to say about Steve Frid being our one and 

only candidate that we brought forward, but I just couldn’t think of 

anything that was funny, so sorry, Steven. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

And that’s my report, Mr. Chair. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. And before we turn it 

over to our new executive director, I would like to have the Board of 

Advisors officially thank the former executive director, Mark 

Robbins. I believe he came out of retirement to be the acting 

executive director for several years, after several years of 

101 
 

 

 

retirement, and so even though he’s not here -- I understand he’s in 

California, enjoying life without this job, but can we give him a 

round of applause? 

[Applause] 

EAC UPDATE, VVSG, AND ESTEP PRESENTATIONS 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And now we’ll turn it over to Executive Director Frid. 

MR. FRID: 

Hi. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me and 

allowing me to speak today. So I am Steven Frid. I am the 

executive director of the EAC. I’m a 15-year federal government 

employee. I started my career at the Office of Personnel 

Management, eventually moved onto the Secret Service, and I 

come to the EAC by way of the Department of Education. 

As I’m sure you’re aware, the EAC is the only federal agency 

focused just on election administration. Our mission is to help 

election officials improve the administration of elections and to help 

Americans vote. The Board of Advisors is a key part of helping us 

fulfill our mission. 

Now, for a few EAC highlights from 2022, which was a great 

year of growth and success for the agency. The security of election 

staff and the integrity of our elections were in question. But despite 

102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all, our elections ran safely and securely, thanks to election officials 

across the country. 

To help with poll worker recruitment efforts, we held National 

Poll Worker Recruitment Day and Help America Vote Day. On 

Help America Vote Day alone, 41 states participated on social 

media. The toolkit and graphics are still available at 

HelpAmericaVote.gov. 

In 2022, we also started holding in-person meetings again, 

including our first public hearing at our new D.C. office. We 

celebrated 20 years of the Help America Vote Act in October. And 

we achieved major milestones with the implementation of the 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0, accrediting two voting 

system test labs to test voting systems to VVSG 2.0. 

This is clearly an exciting time for the agency, and I’ll dive 

deeper into some of the work from the last year in today’s 

presentation. This QR code will take you to the EAC’s annual 

report, and you will also have a QR code for the annual report in 

your folder of Board member materials. I hope you can take some 

time to read that: the in-depth work of our agency. 

We are looking to do some big things in this fiscal year. Our 

overall agency funding is $28 million. Our general operating budget 

is 37.8% more than it was in FY2022. You can see a history of 

EAC funding since fiscal year 2010 right on this chart. The 

103 
 

 

 

 

increase in funding will help the EAC expand the resources 

available to election officials. 

Now, here’s an overview of some of EAC’s top priorities, 

each of which I’ll touch on today. We’ve made significant strides 

toward achieving these goals. First, I’ll discuss our progress toward 

VVSG 2.0. Next, I’ll explain how we’re continuing to develop the 

ESTEP program. Then, I’ll cover the 2022 EAVS, or Election 

Administration and Voting Survey, which many of you may be 

familiar with from filling out that information and submitting it earlier 

this year. After that, I’ll highlight how the EAC is distributing $75 

million in HAVA election security grants. And finally, I’ll update you 

on the EAC’s latest resources for election officials. 

As you may know, the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, 

or VVSG, are a set of specifications and requirements against 

which voting systems can be tested to determine if the systems 

meet required standards. These are completely voluntary; 

however, some states do require adherence to VVSG by law. The 

VVSG started with version 1.0, and the EAC recently implemented 

higher standards for voting systems, known as the VVSG 2.0. 

Our director of testing and certification will go into more 

detail about the VVSG 2.0 and where we are now, but I know this is 

an important topic as we work towards the deprecation of previous 

standards this fall. During the implementation of VVSG 2.0, no 

104 
 

 

 

 

voting systems will be decertified by the EAC. You will be able to 

continue using systems that have been certified to VVSG 1.0 and 

1.1. Current systems do not need to be replaced unless otherwise 

dictated by individual state statute. 

We heard the need for support and communicating about 

VVSG 2.0 and the deprecation of standards. In response, the EAC 

has released materials to assist election officials with 

communications about VVSG 2.0 and voting systems. Materials 

will help reassure the public that our voting systems are secure and 

accurate. For more information, visit the website EAC.gov/election 

officials. Again, John Panek will talk more about this later today. 

Now what is ESTEP? ESTEP stands for Election Supporting 

Technology Evaluation Program. Through ESTEP, we aim to 

produce election technology standards similar to VVSG, create 

draft standards that can be used by Voting System Testing 

Laboratories, or VSTLs, create program manuals, and administer 

and report results of pilot programs. Jay Phelps, here today, the 

Director of the ESTEP program, will talk more about this new 

program for the EAC, including the progress and next steps for this 

priority area. 

The EAVS goes out to election officials in 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories: American Samoa, 

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

105 
 

 

 

 

 

Virgin Islands. The information we collect from this survey creates 

the nation’s most comprehensive report on election administration, 

registration, and voting. It has national-, state-, and county-level 

data. 

The EAVS report supports data-driven policy solutions to 

improve areas, such as military and overseas voting, voting 

accessibility, mail-in voting, registration, and poll worker 

recruitment. At the EAC, we use the EAVS to learn more about 

timely and important election administration issues, but we also 

hope this is also a valuable resource for election officials. 

The EAC is continually looking for ways to show the data 

and improve the distribution of this valuable research. As I 

mentioned earlier, the 2022 EAVS report will be published in June. 

With the FY2023 budget, Congress appropriated $75 million 

in election security grants. The EAC’s grants team not only works 

to distribute those funds but also to support election officials with 

reporting requirements and spending questions. In 2018, for the 

first time since 2010, EAC received grant funds under the authority 

of Section 101 to provide grants to states with an emphasis on 

election security. 

You can see here now that grant funding has been allocated 

over the years. The 2023 funds are consistent with 2022, and it is 

good to see dedicated funding being provided in an off year, when 

106 
 

 

 

election officials are planning for federal elections in the following 

year. As always, the EAC grant staff are available to answer 

questions you may have about the new grants and previous HAVA 

grants. The Election Security Grant narratives, budgets, and 

reports can be found at EAC.gov. 

We're also excited that, for the first time since 2010, we 

received funding for the HAVA College Poll Worker Grant Program. 

The college program grants are authorized under HAVA to 

encourage student participation as poll workers or assistance, to 

foster student interest in the elections process, and to encourage 

state and local governments to use students as poll workers. The 

grants also aim to relieve poll worker shortages. $1 million in the 

EAC’s fiscal year 2023 budget are dedicated towards this grant 

program. We’ll release more information about how to apply for 

this grant program soon. 

Our clearinghouse team is always coming out with new 

resources for election officials. Here are just some examples of the 

material we currently have available. You can view all of our latest 

resources by going to this URL and using this QR code. Tomorrow, 

EAC senior election subject matter experts Ben Jackson and Adam 

Podowitz -Thomas will cover these in more details. We always 

welcome your feedback, and you can e-mail 

clearinghouse@EAC.gov if you have any ideas for new resources. 

107 
 

 

 

 

Lastly, that’s my information there. Please feel free to 

contact me at any time, and I thank you, once again, for having me 

today. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you for your report. 

[Applause] 

MR. FRID: 

Next, I’ll turn it over to Jay Phelps to discuss more on the 

ESTEP program. 

MR. PHELPS: 

Thank you, Steve. I really appreciate it. And good morning, 

everybody. My name is Jay Phelps, and it’s so good to be here 

with you, and thank you for your time and commitment to this 

group. 

Just a little bit about myself, I’ve been with the agency now 

for about seven months. I was a local county clerk in Columbus, 

Indiana, and then after that, I served as the Director of Election 

Modernization for the Secretary of State in the State of Indiana, so 

I’m really excited to be in this role as the director of the Election 

Supporting Technology Evaluation Program. It is a mouthful. My 

wife always says, hey, can you tell me what you do again? --

[Laughter] 

MR. PHELPS: 

108 
 

 

-- what’s your title? when she’s tried to explain it to folks, and what 

an important task and effort that’s ahead of us. 

So what is ESTEP? As I mentioned, and as Steve 

mentioned, it stands for the Election Supporting Technology 

Evaluation Program, where we evaluate the security and 

accessibility of our election supported technology, such as 

electronic pollbooks, voter registration systems, blank ballot 

delivery systems, and election night reporting systems, just to name 

a few, and to create standards and put best practices in place for 

those technologies. 

And so, kind of the process of the ESTEP process, the first 

is to create a set of requirements for the two voting system 

technical laboratories to be able to test to, and that’s certainly the 

case. I’ll get into our electronic pollbook pilot here shortly, but that’s 

kind of the first phase of our program, and then to create file 

artifacts, such as vendor agreements and different contracts to 

work with them, and then of course, checking with the VSTLS for 

testing availability and for them to work with them to create a 

testing matrix as the manufacturers go through the process. 

And then it’s obviously to bring you into the fold and work 

and update our stakeholders on the pilot. I would just say that the 

electronic pollbook requirements, we work with NIST, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, now for about a year, so 

109 
 

 

before my time. The EPB requirements were being worked on with 

our staff before I was brought on board, so I know there’s been 

different stakeholder feedback and different advisory boards of the 

EAC that’s provided feedback for those requirements, so I just want 

to thank any of those that have provided and again, it’s a still 

working document, but we, of course, want to get the National 

Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of 

Elected Directors, and our advisory boards to incorporate feedback 

as we continue to go through this pilot and testing phase in the 

process. 

And then once we went through the pilots and, you know, 

talked with the labs, talked with the manufacturers, talked with the 

states, if the state has an in-house, I should say, not homegrown --

that’s another kind of word you stay away from -- but an in-house 

system, kind of what went really well during testing and what needs 

extra work or what may not fit into our future best practices or 

formal certification program. And then the Commissioners, of 

course, will take all of that data and feedback and recommend a 

next step. Is that a formal program for these election supporting 

technologies, or do we do additional pilot work? 

And so, why electronic pollbooks? Why do we pilot them 

first? As you could see from the data from the 2020 EVS, nearly 39 

states -- I think we’re closer to 40 or 41 now -- use electronic 

110 
 

 

pollbooks. Nearly 2,000 jurisdictions throughout our country utilize 

EPBs, and a number of states have certification requirements in 

place, in their general assemblies and in their codes when it comes 

to testing certification, so they’re really vital that we be a resource 

to states and develop a set of requirements that they can be able to 

utilize and make their jobs easier as a result. 

And then just kind of an overview of our EPB requirements. 

I know out of all the information you received for this conference, 

you did get a draft copy of the requirements, so just a quick, for 

security requirements, we talk about access control, physical 

security measures, system integrity, network and 

telecommunication security, software design and architecture, 

logging, supply chain and risk management, and then with 

accessibility and usability, we get into core functionality 

requirements for EPB supporting audio and supporting additional 

languages. 

And so, kind of where we are in the process currently with 

our EPB pilot, so as I mentioned, you know, we’re bringing 

manufacturers in. We do have five that have participated in our 

pilot. Those were basically chosen on a first-come, first-served 

basis, so we basically gave the manufacturers a month to review 

our requirements and let them know that there was going to be a 

participant agreement coming. And we sent out that participant 

111 
 

 

 

 

 

agreement, and the most equitable way was kind of a first-come, 

first-served basis, and within a matter of 24 hours, we received 

four. Our goal was four manufacturers that wanted to participate. 

There were two that were kind of on the fence but didn’t necessarily 

show any interest, and the one ended up coming back later and 

asking if they could still test one of their brand-new products, and 

we had some funding, so I said absolutely. We would love to have 

you. The more data the better. 

So those five EPB manufacturers are ES&S, KNOWiNK, 

Tenex Solutions, Robis, and Votec. And we tried to, of course, 

divide them up as evenly as possible Pro V&V and SLI Compliance. 

ES&S has completed testing. They have reviewed the lab reports, 

and I was just given a copy of that, so once I travel back home, I 

will definitely dive into that and get into the process. I know Tenex 

Solutions has a copy of theirs, so they’re completed with testing as 

well, and I should receive a copy with that next week. And then 

KNOWiNK isn’t far behind. So Votec and Robis is actually in the 

process of scheduling testing currently, and so we’re excited about 

that. 

I will say, too, I did hear from the State of North Carolina. 

They have an in-house EPB system, and so we really want to 

measure that system as well, and they are going to participate in 

our pilot, have verbally agreed. They’re just waiting on the actual 

112 
 

 

 

 

participant agreement to be signed. I also reached out to Colorado, 

Michigan, and a few others, so we could have another one also 

join. 

So what do we do once the pilot has concluded? As I 

mentioned, we’re going to review all the lab reports, gather 

manufacturer and VSTL feedback and then, of course, continue to 

engage with folks like yourself and the different organizations to 

see what you believe should be any best practice or a full program 

as we continue to move forward to make this more a mature 

program. 

I’m planning on drafting, of course, a comprehensive pilot of 

all the findings. I’m trying to be as simplistic as possible for our 

stakeholders, and during that time, of course, maybe issue some 

one-pagers for our state officials, so whenever they get questions, 

it’s a little bit easier to dissect that information for them. And then 

the Commissioners will determine if a formal EPB certification 

program is warranted. 

And then, the question has kind of come up, so we started to 

turn our attention to voter registration systems and the next process 

to development requirements for. I understand that’s a massive 

undertaking, and based upon the feedback last week at the 

Standards Board, I think, you know, there were some great 

questions. We had some wonderful feedback, and so we’re trying 

113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

to kind of debate on what -- there’s no formal process on what we 

look at next. I’ve heard some folks say, what about ballot delivery. 

So I’d love to hear your feedback on that, you know, if you have 

something that you think, hey, this needs to be next. This is crucial 

and here’s why. But we want to keep the ball rolling with this 

program. We don’t want to sit idle, and that’s really important to us. 

And I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Also, too, like, I 

want to continue to, you know, stay in touch with all of you. The 

more feedback, the better, especially in writing, so I can include it in 

our pilot report, so if you contact ESTEP at EAC.gov, we will 

definitely reach out, continue that open line of communication. 

But I know some of you have questions, so I’d love to 

answer those. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Let me ask a question. I think we’re going to do 

questions at the end. Does that make sense? After John’s 

presentation? 

Okay. All right. That’s fine. Phil, go ahead, and then we’ll 

take a couple. 

MR. STARK: 

Thanks. So several questions. So, first of all, what was the 

process of developing the testing assertions? Is there a place we 

can read the testing assertions? I assume the TGDC wasn’t 

114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

involved or we would’ve heard about it. And is EAC also 

contemplating developing best practices around the use of EPBs, 

including things like having paper backups and so on? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yeah, that’s an excellent question. So as far as the actual 

requirements, if you’re referring to, I believe you were all sent a 

copy in your packets. I know it’s a lot of information to dissect. It’s 

a 40-page requirement report, but by no means are they --

[Chorus of no’s ] 

MR. PHELPS: 

Nobody? Okay. All right. Sorry. There’s some confusion, 

and it might’ve been buried in, but I was talking with Sara. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I believe there’s --

MR. PHELPS: 

Yeah. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- a link and --

MR. PHELPS: 

There is on, yeah, the QR code, so maybe that was --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That’s what it was. If you didn’t get a hard copy, it’s --

MR. PHELPS: 

115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that’s okay. I mean, again, we still have plenty of time. 

I mean, this is, by no way, a finalist draft. We want your feedback 

and comments, and so please review. 

And then to your second question about best practices, yes. 

I know during the TGDC when I presented a few months ago, 

Shane had a question about, you know, what do you do about 

backups, right, as a county clerk, and I remember printing 

thousands of pages and wasting so much of that value, so what are 

the best practices about, you know, battery backups and things of 

that nature. What way should we look to maybe if there was a 

natural disaster to recommend that for election officials, so that’s a 

great question, and I think we plan on doing that. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Go ahead, yes. And then we’ll go to Kevin. 

MS. WALKER: 

Chris Walker, Jackson County, Oregon. Great subject, by 

the way, and I’m glad to see it happening. Barbara, thank you for 

sending the verified votings. I was looking through that. I kind of 

would like to see a separation, though, because if you have looked 

at this document that was sent out, it was based on electronic 

pollbooks. I’m from Oregon, we’re 100% vote by mail, but they kind 

of group that into the in-house electronic pollbooks, which is kind of 

defeating to me, because I think it should be a separate category 

116 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for 100% vote-by-mail states, because for the matter of this, it looks 

like these systems are being vetted, but they’re not, because this is 

built into our election management system through our voter 

registration election management, so they’re completely separate 

functionalities. I understand why it was grouped that way. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Well, if you’ve got suggestions for that, send them to me. 

MS. WALKER: 

Absolutely. So I appreciate that. So the other item that I 

would like to see come up on this as we’re talking about voting 

system guidelines would be for electronic ballot marking devices, 

delivery, et cetera. We are one of the counties within Oregon that 

have been using a voting app for UOCAVA, military and overseas 

voters to allow options. I would like to see that expanded to the 

disability community, first responders, those experiencing natural 

disasters, but I would also like to see some guidelines based on the 

EAC put in place that they have the option to also get these 

certifications through that, so that would be where I would like to 

see an expansion of that. 

I know it’s controversial, but if we have options, viable 

options for this community, I would like to see us be proactive in 

that. You know, the world is wide open. Creativity, people with 

great ideas, I think a lot of those are being shot down right now, just 

117 
 

 

 

 

for the guise of, hey, it’s not secure, but I think we need to 

challenge the cyber community, the academic community. Their 

opinions are very valued, but as an elections administrator, if I have 

a tool that I know I can provide to a person serving our country or a 

person with a disability, then I 100% want to be able to utilize that 

so they can exercise their right to vote. Again, it’s about options, 

and there is no one size fits all. 

MR. PHELPS: 

Thank you. Excellent. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Kevin Bratcher, do you still have a question? 

MR. BRATCHER: 

Yeah, just in Kentucky, our State Board of Elections are 

creating their own ePollbook. Have you heard of that around other 

states or whatnot? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yes. Yeah, there are -- excuse me. Sorry. There are other 

states that have their own in-house developed EPB. I know 

Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina are among others, so you 

know, as you are building up your program, it may be worth your 

while to reach out to them and kind of get some of their feedback. I 

know North Carolina, we have been talking with them frequently 

because they’re going to participate. They definitely have some 

118 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trial and error with their system, so they would be a great resource 

to reach out to. Michigan is another one that would be great to 

reach out to as well. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, we have Barbara. Go ahead. I saw your hand, and 

then we’ll get to --

MS. SIMONS: 

So, just a couple of mundane questions. Can we get the 

slides, or what are these? Yes, we can? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yeah. 

MS. SIMONS: 

And also, can we share this information with people not on 

the Board of Advisors, like security experts and people like that? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yes, I don’t see a reason why we can’t. Absolutely. The 

more the merrier. 

MS. SIMONS: 

And they can give you feedback? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Sure. Please. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Great. Thank you. 

119 
 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Barbara, real quick, could you just explain what you sent 

around to everybody today as well? 

MS. SIMONS: 

Oh, what I sent around was a product of Verified Voting. It’s 

a map of the United States showing the states and, I believe, 

county-level use of pollbooks. I’m getting feedback from people, 

suggestions for correcting things or making things clearer, and 

please send me your feedback, because we want to make it as 

accurate and clear as possible, so you should have my e-mail 

address on the list, and anyway, please send me feedback. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Is there one more question, and then we’re going to 

get to the next --

Oh, I’m sorry. Let’s do it right now. 

MS. BRADY: 

I just wanted to point out for folks as well, in the Dropbox link 

that was shared, there is a copy of the electronic pollbooks master 

requirements draft, so if folks are looking to reference that, just 

send to that Dropbox there. If you have any issues accessing, just 

let me know. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

120 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I’m going to get to 

Jim. I think it was Jenny, then Jim. Go ahead. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Well, I think it was Jim and then me, but --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Go ahead, Jim. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Jim Dickson. On the ESTEP, is that where the question of 

making mail-in accessible, secure, and easy to use will be 

addressed, or is -- if it’s not there, where is that question going to 

be addressed? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yeah, it can be. Absolutely. I think, you know, as we pilot, 

you know, the other ballot delivery systems, but I think, also, too, it 

could be a subject-matter-expert lane that develop our best 

practices and methodologies as well, so I think there’s a couple of 

different stakeholder engagements, you know, within our divisions 

that we could partner on that with. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

121 
 

 

Okay. Jenny. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Yeah, so I have some kind of brief, logistical questions, 

much like Barbara. So first of all, I noted in the draft you sent 

around that one of the tasks that this is supposed to perform is to 

instruct poll workers on infrequent tasks, and I didn’t see a lot of 

information about how the ePollbook would be searchable and what 

training would occur for poll workers at the state and local levels, to 

make sure that they were able to actually search the pollbook with 

regard to those instructions for infrequent tasks. Having read 

through Alabama’s voting regulations, which was a nice, thick book 

-- it was not a good beach read. 

[Laughter] 

MS. CARROLL: 

But anyway, there’s a lot of repetition, and it’s not super 

searchable, so I’m excited about this, that when hard questions 

come up, that people would be able to look at it. But as someone 

who works with databases and information systems all the time, 

searchability is important, I think. 

I also had a question with regard to -- and I’m down in 1.2.5, 

the discussion around anti-theft controls and emergency system 

decommissioning. You noted that there was going to be the ability 

to remotely remove content and access to devices if the device was 

122 
 

stolen. I didn’t see information in the rest of the system, integrity 

discussion about what the protocol for determining that something 

has been stolen and who would have the ability to remotely remove 

content or access from devices. 

And then the last question I had, as someone who grew up 

in a rural area and comes from rural areas that don’t have a lot of 

access to broadband, it looks like this relies heavily on access to 

internet, so I was curious as to how this was going to work in 

regions that tend to get underrepresented because they don’t have 

the same level of internet access that might be required to support 

this. Thank you. 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yeah. Thank you so much for your questions. For the first 

two, obviously, those are still being developed, so thank you for 

those feedback, and we’ll definitely consider those. 

I come from a rural area. Some city, some rural. And one of 

the challenges that we faced was, you know, as you know, with the 

constant check-ins, right? Someone could be at the courthouse 

and see that I checked in, for example, when I voted, but when you 

go offline, that pauses until the connectivity comes back and you 

can upload. So the question that always came up, until our state 

legislature finally took action, is what about, like, you know, Open 

Source, and it’s a really scary topic, honestly, and it was like, no, 

123 
 

 

 

 

absolutely not. We use Wi-Fi-encrypted, password-protected 

hotspots, and so folks who can’t, obviously, afford that, I think that, 

you know, the best measure is, in my opinion, and again, still 

developing and best practices would definitely be needed in this 

area, but if there wasn’t, you know, any connectivity throughout the 

entire day of the election day or, you know, walk-in voting or what 

have you, is to come back to the courthouse and wait until you can 

connect securely and have that data uploaded. There’s no sense 

of having any of our technologies unsecure. 

So thank you for that question, and that’s something that’s 

on my mind, certainly, as we continue to develop. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. I think we have time for one more, and then we’ve got 

to go to the final presentation from John. Yes, Cleta. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

I work with a lot of citizen volunteers, and they have a lot of 

questions about ePollbooks, and I just wonder if I can take those 

questions and forward them to you? 

MR. PHELPS: 

Please. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

And if there is going to be an opportunity for public comment 

well before the end, but you know --

124 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yes. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

-- more at the beginning of the process. 

MR. PHELPS: 

Yes, and I apologize for not mentioning that. There will be a 

public comment period. You know, basically once the testing is 

complete and we continue moving forward, it will not be at the end. 

It’ll probably be once we have kind of our report put together as far 

as how these different manufacturers tested against our 

requirements at the in-house states, and then there’ll be probably, I 

would assume, a 90 -- I think kind of the traditional was 90-day 

public comment period for folk to be able to submit questions 

before anything’s final. Absolutely. But please, forward all the 

questions you can to me. I would really appreciate that. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Okay. Thank you. 

MR. PHELPS: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. We’re going to turn to Jonathan, and we’re going to 

close out your section. 

MR. PANEK: 

125 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jay. Thank you, 

guys, for the reminder. Everybody, a pleasure to be here. My 

name is John Panek. I’m the Director of Testing Certification with 

EAC, and I’m going to talk today about the VVSG Lifecycle Policy. 

So this is a presentation that I’ve done a couple times, so for those 

of you on the TGDC, you’ve probably already seen it. I presented 

this at the Standards Board last week as well, so let’s get into it. 

So the EAC’s VVSG Lifecycle Policy, it’s a new policy, 

written by staff over the last year, prior to approval by the 

Commissioners on April 4th of 2022. The policy facilitates 

migration to new standards by providing guidance on several 

topics, starting with the types of VVSG version changes. We define 

major and minor. Within the policy, it talks about VSTL 

accreditation and when accreditation is necessary for new VVSG 

iterations, depreciation of standards, which I’ll talk about today in 

depth. The policy also talks about changes that may be made to 

systems certified to deprecated standards. And it also establishes 

an annual review process for potential changes to the 

requirements. 

So today, I’m going to focus on the last three bullets in the 

policy. First, VVSG deprecation is defined in Section 3 of the 

policy, and it means the use of a standard work being discontinued. 

A more colloquial term for deprecation is sunsetting. 

126 
 

 

 

To repeat points made earlier by Executive Director Frid, this 

does not mean decertification. Decertification of voting systems 

can only take place following the process detailed in the EAC 

testing and certification program manual, and previous certified 

systems to deprecated standards shall retain their status. 

The policy talks about when there is a path to certification of 

voting systems to a new major revision of the VVSG with at least 

one of the EAC’s test labs accredited to test to the standard, then 

obsolete major VVSG revisions will be deprecated 12 months after 

the date of that accreditation. 

Once the obsolete standards are deprecated, the EAC 

registered manufacturers will be required to submit voting systems 

to the latest VVSG standard. 

So that brings us where we are today. As of last November 

and December, both of the EAC’s test labs were accredited by both 

NIST and the EAC to VVSG 2.0, the first of which was SLI 

Compliance on November 15. That means that the VVSG 2.0 is 

fully implemented and the 12-month clock is ticking. 

Borrowing a couple slides straight from Executive Director 

Frid’s presentation, I feel like these are important to underscore and 

bear repeating, but based on the date of deprecation, the EAC will 

continue to accept applications to test voting systems against 1.0 

and potentially 1.1. Most of you probably know that we haven’t 

127 
 

 

 

 

 

 

seen a system for 1.1, but it’s possible a new submission could be 

received through November 15 of 2023. After that point, on the 

16th of November, both VVSG 1.0 and 1.1 will be deprecated. 

Following that, applications must be to VVSG 2.0 or limited 

maintenance modifications to existing EAC certified systems, which 

I’ll talk about a little bit in one of the coming slides. 

Again, I want to make it very clear that deprecation does not 

mean decertification. It only means that testing to those standards 

will be discontinued. We’re allowing a handful of carveouts for 

limited maintenance modifications to systems certified to 1.0, and 

this essentially allows for jurisdictions to realize the full lifespan of 

those systems, because we are currently certifying 1.0 systems as 

of today, and so, these could potentially be out in the field and used 

for the next 10 or 15 years. 

So jurisdictions will be able to continue to use and procure 

the systems that have been certified to 1.0. The EAC is not 

requiring anybody to update or upgrade those systems at any point 

in the future. They can be used indefinitely. 

And of course, as most of you know, it’ll take time for 2.0 

systems to be certified and fielded. We've currently got one 

application for a 2.0 system that was approved by the EAC a 

couple months ago, and so that is currently going through the test 

campaign process. It’s very early in the process. So not really 

128 
 

 

possible to provide a timeline. That’s often a question that comes 

up: when will 2.0 systems be ready? It’s difficult to predict that. It’ll 

take some time, but we are currently working on the first 

submission right now. 

And again, repeating this slide from Executive Director Frid, 

we have created materials to assist election officials, the 

communication about deprecation of 1.0 and 1.1. These materials 

are intended to clarify what this means and to help reassure the 

public that our systems are still safe and secure and they can be 

used. And they can be accessed on the EAC homepage. There’s 

a handful of topics up at the top of the homepage, and you’ll see 

that deprecation is first of those tiles. 

Okay. So to get into the maintenance exceptions a little 

deeper, Section 3 of the Lifecycle Policy addresses this subject, 

and defines that the different types of changes that can be made to 

systems certified to deprecated standard. In the following 

categories, we have security updates or software patches, 

hardware mitigations that address known security vulnerabilities 

and exploits. Bug fixes to correct critical functional discrepancies, 

issues, or anomalies. Non-critical enhancements are not 

considered bug fixes, if you will. COTS replacement of commercial, 

off-the-shelf equipment that has reached end of life. Jurisdictional 

rule changes that are legally required by a jurisdiction already 

129 
 

 

 

fielding the system due to some form of change in legislation in that 

jurisdiction. 

To clarify, this type of change must be supported by a chief 

election official, electoral board, or certification body where the 

system is fielding. This is to ensure that there’s no manufacturer 

loophole for submitting changes that they simply want to make. We 

want to assure that those types of changes make it into 2.0 certified 

systems. We will evaluate them that way. 

And lastly, updating or adding new components compliant to 

the current VVSG standard. So we’ve added this carveout to allow 

a bridge to certify systems, component by component. It’s actually 

a process that has been in our program manuals for some time that 

hasn’t been widely used, if at all, but this essentially allows for a 

manufacturer to submit an individual component of a system that 

would be tested against 2.0 requirements in this case, where the 

overall system would maintain a certification to the baseline 

standard. 

So when a manufacturer applies for a modification to a 

voting system, certified to a deprecating standard, they must clearly 

state under which categories they’re applying, must supply 

supporting documentation for their claims. 

So the final section of the Lifecycle Policy addresses two 

separate items: VVSG review cycle and the update process. First, 

130 
 

 

 

 

 

there will be an annual review to consider proposed changes to the 

VVSG. This is not intended to be a yearly update to the VVSG, but 

rather an ongoing effort to prepare future revisions. The goal is to 

create a predictable process that invites continuous improvement 

and engagement with the development of the standard, also to 

have smaller, more frequent iterations, rather than significant 

rewrites, as was the case with 2.0 and 1.1. 

So the process for the annual review begins with collecting 

and reviewing feedback and potential recommendations from 

stakeholders for changes or additions to the VVSG. The testing 

and certification program director will submit a report to the 

executive director of the EAC at the end of the fiscal year, detailing 

proposed updates received. 

Following the executive director review, this report will be 

shared with our FACA boards for review and feedback. And the 

second part of the Section 4 of the Lifecycle Policy talks about the 

steps in the VVSG update process. These steps follow what is 

prescribed in HAVA and required. It just provides a little more 

granularity on exactly how we’re going to go through that process. 

Vetted and accepted feedback from stakeholders on proposed 

changes to the VVSG from the annual review will feed into the new 

revision. 

131 
 

 

So to accomplish this, we are envisioning the timeline that 

you see up on the screen: a 90-day public comment period each 

year, from approximately February through May or June to receive 

feedback from stakeholders. We currently have public comment 

open on Regulations.gov. This is the first year we’re doing the 

annual review process in this manner, and that period of public 

comment will be open through June 7. 

After the closeout of the public comment period, testing and 

certification staff will compile all submitted comments and post 

them to our website. Following that, I will write a report to 

Executive Director Frid due at the end of the fiscal year, and that 

will be reviewed at the EAC. A determination will be made as to 

whether or not the proposed changes warrant updating the VVSG, 

not something I envision occurring the first year that we’re doing 

this, but at some point in the future, that will be approximately the 

stage at which that decision is made, of course based on feedback 

from our FACA boards as well. 

Following the executive director’s review, the report and the 

recommendation will be sent to our Advisory Boards by the end of 

the calendar year, approximately. I don’t make any promises on 

dates. That’s right around the holidays, but you know, maybe we’ll 

look at January if it gets a little bit late, but essentially, what we 

want to do is work with NIST and the TGDC as a first priority to look 

132 
 

 

 

 

 

over the proposed changes and then have that feed into the 

Standards Board and all of you, the Board of Advisors, as well as 

our Local Leadership Council. 

So to get into the specifics of the report, since we’re going to 

be doing this annual review one year after the other, there’s going 

to be some quantity of comments that are accepted, some that are 

rejected. Accepted comments will feed through to the next annual 

review process so those can accumulate and be written into the 

next iteration of the VVSG. 

I want to highlight that the report isn’t necessarily considered 

a recommendation or supported by the EAC. We’re presenting it 

simply as a summary compilation of feedback received. The 

executive director’s decision to initiate a new draft of the VVSG 

would consider the nature and volume of changes proposed as well 

as feedback from the Advisory Boards. 

As mentioned previously, the VVSG update itself will follow 

the familiar HAVA-mandated process, including public comment, 

review, agency review and comment, and consideration by the 

commissioners. And both the report and the raw feedback will be 

posted on the EAC’s website. 

Okay. That concludes my presentation. I want to turn it over 

and see if anybody has any questions they’d like to ask. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

133 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Palmer, please. Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

I just have a question for you. Could you describe the 

penetration testing as part of the program manual changes and 

how that impacts 1.0 systems? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes. So with the --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Turn your mic back on, please. 

MR. PANEK: 

Oh, sorry. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

MR. PANEK: 

So with the accreditation of the labs to VVSG 2.0, the latest 

iteration of the program manuals, version 3.0, is now effective. 

Those are posted on our website. A major addition, as 

Commissioner Palmer has asked, is penetration testing of systems, 

submitted to the testing and certification program. So we are 

currently implementing this now, with not just 2.0 systems that are 

requested by manufacturers, but we are also doing this for 1.0 

requests that we are receiving. So essentially, any submission to 

134 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the program will undergo penetration testing up front as part of the 

application process, essentially, and the test-readiness review. 

This penetration testing is conducted by the test labs. It’s 

not an exhaustive penetration test, but it is a new addition to the 

program, something we haven’t explicitly done as part of the 

evaluation against standards in the past, so the hope is that this will 

help strengthen the security posture of systems submitted to the 

program where findings will be reported to the manufacturer that 

they’ll have to fix during the test campaign process. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Barbara, you first. Question. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Okay. So I’m glad to hear about the penetration testing, by 

the way. So you said that if components are upgraded, they can be 

tested, you know, for systems. 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Is there any chance they can be just individual component 

testing so that people can just buy individual components, not 

necessarily associated with a particular system that they have? 

MR. PANEK: 

135 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Thanks for the question. That’s also a new addition 

that we have in the 3.0 program manuals is a component testing 

pilot program. We have not been approached by a manufacturer 

that wants to do this yet, but we do have at least the basic policy 

structure in place to allow for an individual component to be 

submitted with interoperability testing. That’ll be something that we 

envision will be a strong point of focus with submission of those 

components. 

MS. SIMONS: 

So it’d be possible to do a mix-and-match? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes, that's correct. 

MS. SIMONS: 

Thank you. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. John, first off, could you go back to 

slide 8, please? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes. 

MS. KAGAN: 

And I should say Cheryl Kagan, very proud to be the senator 

for NIST, which is in the heart of my district, and I love bragging 

about the great work they do. 

136 
 

 

I have two questions, and I don't know if this is a new-person 

question or not, but what I don’t see in here is anything about 

reporting to the public and marketing, and if we are trying to make 

sure that people have confidence in our elections, posting 

something on the website seems not the right way to reach the 

general public, let alone even the conduits, like the press and 

advocacies of political parties and all that, so that’s question 

number one. 

And then, question number two, you said this might be 

annual. Do you assume the same timetable in election years and 

non-election years? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes. So to answer your first question, excellent point. 

Thank you. Good question. I appreciate that. You know, I 

think posting them on our website is the primary mechanism that 

we’ve used in the past, and this is for feedback on what proposed 

changes, you know, what stakeholders feel should be made to the 

VVSG. But there is, you know, an additional stage to that when a 

draft is initiated. That’ll go out for public comment as well, so there 

will be multiple stages of that. I don't know. Like, are you talking 

about something more like media outreach or --

MS. KAGAN: 

137 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, when you say go out, I don't know what that means 

and what sort of lists and what sort of social media and visibility. I 

just want to suggest, as you’re thinking about this, trying to reach 

the general public, putting it on the EAC website seems like not 

ideal. I don't think the average conspiracy theorist or activist is 

finding the EAC website and reading possibly a dense report that’s 

super technical --

MR. PANEK: 

Sure. 

MS. KAGAN: 

-- but the takeaway that we would want is we’re paying attention. 

We’re looking at technology. We’re keeping your elections secure. 

We’re updating systems. I mean, I think the metamessage is going 

to be -- and no pun intended in terms of Meta -- but I think that’s 

going to be important. 

And then, again, the question about election year versus, 

you know, off years, and I know for election people, there’s not 

actually off years, because you’re busy all the time, but I wonder if 

the pattern and the timetable is expected to be the same. 

MR. PANEK: 

We do envision doing this on a yearly basis, and so 

unfortunately, every other year is an election year. It doesn’t mean 

that --

138 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Some places every year. 

[Laughter] 

MR. PANEK: 

Pardon? 

MS. KAGAN: 

That’s why I said every year. 

MR. PANEK: 

Every year, yes, that’s right. 

And so, you know, the language for the annual review 

process actually comes right out of VVSG, and this is the process 

that we’ve developed to work through it, but the --

MS. KAGAN: 

Is it realistic? Just asking a question. 

MR. PANEK: 

Well, it depends on what the feedback looks like. We might 

receive zero comments. 

MS. KAGAN: 

Okay. 

MR. PANEK: 

We might receive a thousand comments, so --

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

John, can I add a little context there, too? 

139 
 

 

 

 

MR. PANEK: 

Yeah. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

You know, I think one thing that is a big part of what John’s 

presentation is -- sorry. Ben Hovland, Commissioner, EAC. You 

know, for those of you who were here for the VVSG 2.0, obviously, 

that was a huge lift. It was, you know, 15 years of technology and a 

jump forward. We had certainly heard the concerns from this body 

and others about stagnation, and a lot of the Lifecycle Policy is 

really about figuring out how to address that. And some of the 

testimony we heard in some of the hearings, you know, the test 

labs would bring up, you know, a relatively minor issue that had 

been brought up but never got addressed. 

And so, more than what John is talking about in this annual 

review process being the VVSG process that some of you have 

seen over the years. It’s really to be able to address those things 

faster, to be able to take those on. Again, it might not be wrapped 

up. We may not go through the HAVA-mandated process for 

adopting a change in a particular year, but that we can talk about 

those concerns, that we can address those concerns and then wrap 

those into an update at the appropriate time without having to do a 

massive, sort of decade-long lift at the same time. 

140 
 

 

 

So I think that’s a big piece of it that I certainly wanted to 

highlight again. We’ve heard the feedback and certainly 

understood the challenge of getting to the 2.0 standard, and we 

hope that whether it’s 2.1 or 3.0, we’re able to put in structural 

pieces to make that more efficient going forward. 

One other thing, just appreciated the comment sort of on 

educating the public. You know, again, I think that these standards 

are certainly very weedy, and there’s an element that we would like 

to talk about more, as far as everything that goes into testing. One 

thing I would highlight is while our budgetary slide earlier is one we 

are very excited about and reflects a positive growth, we probably 

need to add one that puts us in context of other federal agencies. 

You know, in the news recently, I’ll say, you know, I saw 

somewhere somebody noted the Dominion lawsuit was ten times 

the grant budget that the Congress provided. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

It’s 30 times our budget, and it’s twice as much money as 

this agency has had in its history combined. And so I highlight that, 

not for any reason other than to say, you know, doing this work at 

the 50-state level, at the national level is difficult, and in turn, 

communicating that is difficult, and so we certainly rely on you all, 

as ambassadors of the agency, to help with that, but also, you 

141 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

know, to help educate folks about what the realities are of that and 

how -- you know, if there are these needs in the broader 

community, I think that, you know, we are all extremely willing to 

address those within the capacity that we have. 

And so, you know, again, love the feedback that we’re 

getting. This has been a great conversation, but I just wanted to 

sort of highlight those parameters of the agency and this program. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Commissioner. That was a very good 

clarification. Member Walker and then Lamone, then Secretary 

Way. 

MS. WALKER: 

Chris Walker, Jackson County, Oregon. First of all, I just 

want to tell you how thrilled I am that we’re actually having this 

conversation about certifications again. Not so long ago, I 

remember where we couldn’t even have a quorum and we couldn’t 

certify equipment. There were certain business partners, I call 

them, or vendors that had equipment that just sat there, waiting to 

be certified for years, so I’m thrilled we’re having this conversation. 

Kudos for recognizing and for the higher-ups’ funding of the EAC. 

You spoke about the Lifecycle step, and early on in the 

conversation, it reminded me that I remember when we went to buy 

142 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

new equipment, the 550s. We were ES&S years ago. We went to 

buy, you know, move up to the next newest-and-greatest. But 

during those times, of course, with the sell, we were told, oh, gosh, 

this equipment will last you 10 to 20 years. And you know, in reality 

today, technology absolutely moves faster. The time we get that 

equipment, it’s already old news. So I think that’s something I know 

we’re trying to recognize. 

And I think these new VVSGs are going to be more frequent 

than what they were in the past. I think that’s something we need 

to be mindful of. I like the component of the a la carte, basically is 

what I call it, the component for certification, but I really wonder 

what business partner will take a look at a component and try to get 

certification. There may be instances, but really, they’re private 

companies, and it’s their bottom line. They’re in it to make money. 

They’re not in this just to be a volunteer and to break even. So I 

think it’s an important piece of it, but I think what they’re going to be 

further looking at is the bigger picture, if either equipment or it’s 

going to move to that software as a service model. So at what 

point do we look at equipment-based technology versus software 

as a service, which will probably become more prominent as we 

move forward. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

143 
 

 

 

 

Let me get to Linda Lamone. Did you still have a comment? 

I’ll let you answer, John, once we get the other comments out of the 

way. 

MS. LAMONE: 

As you all heard last week at the Standards Board’s 

meeting, there’s a lot of angst out there among the election 

administration community about the deprecation schedule and how 

it’s going to be explained to the public and the members of the 

general assembly at each state. Have you all thought about, 

perhaps, doing a little bit more to help us educate people, because 

we’re going to get a lot of disinformation about, oh my God, they’re 

using decertified equipment, when it’s not true? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yeah. Absolutely. Yes, we have talked internally about a 

communication plan, and we are currently putting that together. I 

don't have details here in front of me, but I know we’re working on 

developing that plan --

MS. LAMONE: 

That’s great news. 

MR. PANEK: 

-- to communicate that out --

MS. LAMONE: 

Thank you. 

144 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. PANEK: 

-- every chance we get. 

MS. LAMONE: 

And if you could communicate that to Leslie and Amy as 

soon as possible so that the membership of the two organizations 

can take a look at it? 

MR. PANEK: 

Yes. 

MS. LAMONE: 

Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes, Secretary Way, please. 

MS. WAY: 

Thank you, Linda, because I was going to ask about that, 

too, the verbiage of deprecation instead of sunsetting. And this 

somewhat dovetails, and I might be underscoring on what Cheryl 

mentioned, what Commissioner Hovland mentioned in terms of 

communication, which is key gearing up to 2024, and of course, 

we’re battling intensely the mis- and disinformation. 

And speaking just from experience, as New Jersey’s 

Secretary of State, not just president of the National Association of 

Secretaries of State, I feel that it is a good feel, if you will, and it’s 

prudent when you do have an independent federal agency, such 

145 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as yourself, the EAC, correct, and who’s out there communicating 

on a broader scale, to your point, Cheryl. And I don't know if it 

would behoove the agency. Commissioner Hovland, you speak 

about dollars in terms of making certain that there is a somewhat of 

a professional communications team that can give that broader 

appeal. 

You have so much on your website. I review the toolkits, the 

poll worker program, but not the everyday person is out there on 

this site. And you know, I say this. I’m coming from a good place. 

I say this respectfully. If I name Election Assistance Program to 

folk, and you know, I apologize I wasn’t here for the majority of this 

because I’m dealing with my senate budget hearing, and I’m glad to 

mention this week the Election Assistance Commission and 

respectfully the legislature, a good portion, may not even be familiar 

with this independent federal agency. So you know, it is very key 

that there is a professionally driven communications tool, person, 

entity, whomever out there to ensure that this mis/disinformation on 

the new standards and all of these other aspects of our election 

process is, you know, pushed out there. 

So that’s my comment. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

I’ll just weigh-in on it. We completely agree. This is 

Commissioner Palmer, EAC. The Commissioners, you know, have 

146 
 

 

 

 

 

gone to a number of states, including Louisiana. Your colleague at 

NASS talked about the voting systems and the difference between 

1.0 and potentially 2.0. 

That really is the model in my mind, because you know, we 

recognize that we don’t have the bandwidth to have the 

megaphone at the federal level that each state could hear. We 

could only do this working together, and so that means 

communication, and we will be -- you know, we’re often in touch 

with NASED and NASS and sort of if there’s opportunities, we are 

more than willing, in our schedules, to come and stand with you 

and talk about the voting systems and support and talk about why 

they’re secure and accurate and the difference between 1.0 and 

2.0. 

So I think that’s really in my opening statements. This 

body’s extremely important, because it’s not just election officials. 

It’s legislatures. It’s mayors. It’s the Congress. It’s other 

stakeholders that you all have folks that listen to what you say. You 

represent them, and so getting the message out on what actually 

happens with voting systems is extremely important, but we can’t 

do it alone. I mean, that’s just frank. We can do all we can. It’s 

much more powerful coming as a partnership when there are 

opportunities. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

147 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. We’re going to have time for maybe two more. Then 

we’re going to have to break. Go ahead, Mr. Fry. 

MR. FEY: 

Thank you. Eric Fey, St. Louis County Board of Advisors. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Fey. I’m sorry. 

MR. FEY: 

No, that’s fine. My question was about VSTL, the testing 

laboratories, and this is to any Commissioner or EAC staff member 

that might be able to address it. In the last couple of years, really 

for the first time in my career, some of the folks who had questions 

about elections started bringing concerns about the VSTLs 

themselves, and so from what I understand is, you know, it’s no 

small investment to stand up with VSTL and to have it be 

accredited and everything, and so can anybody speak to the health 

or robustness of the two currently accredited labs? And is there 

some backstop in place if, at any point, those VSTLs ceased 

operation? Is there a way to stand up another one and ensure that 

the testing continues? 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

You know, Eric, thanks for asking that. I think it’s a good 

flag, and you know, this is an interesting piece of HAVA. HAVA 

requires the labs to be private labs, so there’s an element of that. 

148 
 

 

 

Over the history of the agency, there have been, you know, at 

times, other laboratories, but it seems like two tends to be where 

the number ends up. Part of that is because the HAVA requirement 

that they’re private labs and then ultimately they’re for-profit 

entities, there’s only, as you can imagine, so much business. 

You know, currently, we’re very excited about Pro V&V and 

SLI and our relationship with them and that they came into the 2.0 

standard, you know, but it is certainly something we’re conscious 

of. 

I don't know if others want to add in, but you know, certainly, 

we are hoping that, you know, with expansion of things like ESTEP, 

you know, that would also foster additional sort of market. We think 

things like component testing, you know, could potentially 

incentivize the market and create more interest broadly in this 

space. But certainly, there are limitations within HAVA on the 

structure and in market realities as well. 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

And I’ll add to that. This is Christy McCormick, EAC. A 

number to the manufacturers have been using Idaho National Labs 

to do some penetration testing and coordinated vulnerability testing, 

so even though they’re not one of our labs, they have been utilized. 

And we have visited them, and we have discussed, you know, the 

149 
 

 

 

possibility of how we might use them in the future. That’s still a big 

question mark. 

But I’ll also add that both of our labs have recently 

undergone the NVLAP process through NIST and our own 

certification to be certified to be 2.0 laboratories and both did very 

well and came out as very robust laboratories, and we totally trust 

them to do this very important work. So I’ll just add that as well. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I think we have time for one more. Keith Ingram has the last 

question. 

MR. INGRAM: 

So this, I think, is for Steve or maybe one of the 

Commissioners, but you know, most of the time that I’ve been in 

elections the last -- Keith Ingram, Texas, by the way -- that I’ve 

been in elections, the EAC’s been sort of like the Little Agency That 

Could, and it’s just been chugging up that impossible hill, just 

chugging away, trying to make some progress. 

And it’s a radically different thing when you all come here 

today, talking about certifying pollbooks and voter registration 

systems and whatever other components. I mean, that seems like 

a very remarkable expansion, and I was just as pleased as you all 

to see that budget slide and 37.8% increase is good. But is it 

150 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

enough to cover what you all are trying to bite off? I mean, this 

seems like you might be biting off more than you can chew. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Commissioner Hovland, can you speak to that again? I 

know you’ve talked to this a lot over the -- oh, I’m sorry. Tom. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

Well, I guess I’m the only Commissioner who hasn’t spoken. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

Just to keep my job. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’m sorry about that, Commissioner Hicks. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

No, no, it’s fine. Keith, thank you. And I think that the large 

part of that is due to the work of the Board of Advisors and 

Standards Board being our advocates on the Hill and with others to 

help expand our budget. Yes, but to make sure that folks realize 

that that’s still not the budget that we should be at. One, it’s still 

below what we were in 2010, if you account for inflation. 

And so, there are a lot of things that we’ve expanded upon. 

This is why we’ve hired Steven to, you know, direct staff so that we 

can be more of an agency that can expand upon other things. 

When Christy and I first got here in 2015, the major thrust of the 

151 
 

 

 

 

agency was how do we survive? We only had about a $7 million 

budget, and that was basically to keep the lights on. 

Since that time, we have worked and shown our true value, 

and I believe that we continue to do that. I think there are other 

things that we can expand upon, but that will include increasing our 

budget. 

As Ben said earlier, if you look at our budget compared to 

other agencies, we are just, you know, basically a tire for an F-35 

fighter, basically, and so to think about what other things we can 

do, we do need that money to come into the agency, and we are 

not allowed to go up and lobby for that, but if members of 

Congress, who may come today, ask us about it, we will express 

upon that. 

And so, I implore all of you to give us your ideas but also 

realize that we are still a small agency, and there are only certain 

things that we can do. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So, Keith, this is Commissioner Palmer. You know, I mean, 

look, I think we’re still the agency that can, and the reason is, you 

know, we are getting increases in the budget, but we do see certain 

needs out there. And look, you can’t look at the election landscape 

and, you know, the resources are needed to the community to help 

the local election officials, the fact that we do need some sort of 

152 
 

testing and standards for pollbooks. And so, it’s just like you at the 

state level. You’re going to do what you can with the budget you 

have, and, you know, as the budget comes, perhaps we can do 

things quicker, more efficiently, but when you see a need, you run 

to the fire, and you do the best you can, and hopefully, the 

resources will be there. And look, I think there’s bipartisan support, 

not only the commission but in the Congress for a lot of things that 

we're doing, and so we’re just doing the best we can and hopefully 

the resources will follow. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So --

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

Sorry. Can I just add one, quick thing on there? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

I hate to miss a chance to talk about funding. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

No. I think, you know, again, Keith, I really appreciate the 

point and agree with my colleagues, but a couple things that flag a 

lot of what you’ve heard about is pilots. Part of the reason that 

we’ve structured that way is recognizing, you know, what 

153 
 

responsible growth looks like. This is, you know, sort of 

investigating these areas that we see needs to figure out if we’re 

the right fit and what the right approach is, but also to be able to 

take the results of these things back to Congress to say, you know, 

this is what we learned in this pilot effort. You know, we heard this 

from our stakeholders, from election officials from our boards. You 

know, this is the result of this, and you know, put that in things like, 

you know, our congressional budget request and to be able to talk 

about and sort of prove a concept. 

You know, additionally, when I think about ePollbooks, and 

in this conversation, I’ll put on my former senate staffer hat for a 

second. You know, we saw legislation on ePollbooks in both 

chambers, both parties. You know, there was obviously a 

congressional interest in that. You know, there’s a lot of things that 

happen up there, and they don’t always have the ability to deepdive the way specialists can, and so, through these pilot efforts, like 

on ePollbooks, you know, we’re able to learn so much, and so if 

there is a legislative effort, you know, again, we’re able to provide 

that technical assistance and inform that. 

And so, you know, I really see, sort of, all of these things, 

you know. I’m glad, again, that you recognize, you know, the 

strides that we’ve made, but you know, I do, and I take the point, 

but I think we have been very conscious to try to do these things in 

154 
 

 

 

 

 

 

a way that’s either sustainable or we can sort of assess after an 

investigative effort. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Let me just take a point of privilege. Jim just asked me, 

could he ask for a list of what we should be asking for. And I 

believe there was some communication that there’s some 

document that shows, I guess, best or greatest needs. Is that what 

you were speaking of, Jim? 

MR. DICKSON: 

Yeah. Yeah. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So if we could, at some point, have something for the 

Commissioners to work with. I think I’ve seen those documents 

before, but I know there’s something that exists from about a year 

ago, but it would be something that we could help steer some of our 

conversations that we’re having. 

MR. DICKSON: 

I’ll work the Hill to get money, but I need to know what the 

priority list is, and it needs to come -- you know, it can’t come out of 

my head. It has to come from you. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

Real quickly, I’ll note that I saw a look from our Acting 

General Counsel, again --

155 
 

 

 

 

[Laughter] 

-- a FACA reminder about lobbying, and certainly we have 

those limitations as well, but you know, we have made legislative 

recommendations to the Hill. Certainly, that’s something we can 

share. And because I see our relatively new Inspector General in 

the background there, I’ll note that she put out a top-managementchallenges document that isn’t something a lot of people 

necessarily see or look at, but I think it really highlighted. It really 

did a great job of highlighting a lot of the challenges that the agency 

faces: structural challenges with limitations in HAVA, you know, 

things like, we have salary caps at the agency that -- you know, 

forget private sector competition. You know, people can go work --

earmuff, staff. You know, they can go to other federal agencies in 

D.C. that are allowed to pay them $40,000 more than we are. 

That’s a real challenge, and it’s something that is in HAVA. 

And so, you know, that and other parameters that again, our 

Inspector General --

MR. DICKSON: 

Can we be sent that document? 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

Yes. You know, so again, I recommend taking a look at that 

as well, and we can send it around. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

156 
 

 

 

 

 

So thank you so much for all that lively debate, but thank you 

for the presentation. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All of our staff. There’s certainly a lot. You’ve got people 

thinking a lot now about what’s coming in the future. 

A couple housekeeping items. One, we are running a few 

minutes late for lunch. We do want to take a group photo before 

we finish and come back and reconvene. Is that still happening? 

MS. BRADY: 

We’re going to do it at break time now, so no intrusion on 

your lunch period. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. All right. 

MS. BRADY: 

We’ll catch it right before the break. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, so make sure we all are present for that. And what 

time will that be? Is it after? 

MS. BRADY: 

It’ll be before our afternoon break, so we have an afternoon 

break at 2:45, so we’ll do it right before then. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

157 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. 

MS. BRADY: 

But you have an hour for lunch right now. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So thank you, sir. It’ll squeeze everything, but we do need to 

take that group photo. And lunch is right across the room where we 

had breakfast, but in order to do that -- we are going to finish this 

conversation, but I think because of the lunch, I don't want to have 

all of you talk about what you want to see on the agency and then 

we’re going to be here until 1:30. So let’s do lunch, and maybe at 

lunch, if we have a little bit more time, we can finish the round to go 

around with. And then one more -- yes? 

MS. SIMONS: 

Is it safe to leave our things here? 

MS. BRADY: 

Yes, we will have EAC staff in this area. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Final thing, I do need a motion in order for us to recess and 

go into lunch. Is there -- so moved? 

158 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. STARK: 

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Is there a second? 

MS. WALKER: 

Second. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All in favor, say aye for lunch. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We’ll reconvene at 1:30. Thank you. 

*** 

[The Board recessed for lunch at 12:33 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.] 

COMMITTEE ON SENATE RULES AND ADMINISTRATION MAJORITY AND 

MINORITY REMARKS 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Hopefully, everybody had a great lunch. We’re going to start 

our program back up. We have not forgot about this side of the 

room. We are going to have you guys recognize yourselves, but 

we have guests coming from Capitol Hill. We don’t want to keep 

them waiting. We know it’s a long trek between here and there, so 

thank you for being here. 

159 
 

 

 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’d like to recognize Commissioner Palmer, who will 

introduce our guests and lead our conversation for the 

congressional panel. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I’d like to introduce our 

next panel to discuss, you know, what is happening from a 

legislative perspective in the Senate and talk with the Committee on 

Senate Rules and Administration Majority and Minority Staff. We 

have two guests today. There’ll be Allison Davis Tuck, Chief 

Counsel Minority, Senate Committee on Senate Rules, and then 

Dan Goldberg, Policy Director, Majority, Committee on Senate 

Rules. 

I’d like to briefly give you their background before we get 

started, and I have a few questions when we get started. 

Allison Tuck served as minority chief counsel for the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Rules Administration. She previously served 

as counsel to Chairman Allen Dickerson and Vice-Chairman Sean 

Cooksey at the Federal Election Commission. Before joining the 

FEC, she was in private practice, advising candidates, office 

holders, political parties, PACs, corporations, trade associations, 

and other organizations on compliance with all aspects of law 

160 
 

 

 

 

 

concerning the political process, including state and federal 

campaign finance, ethics lobbying, and pay-to-play laws. 

Daniel Goldberg, our next panelist currently serves as Policy 

Director for Senate Rules Committee. Prior to that, he served as 

special counsel to Senator Amy Klobuchar. He previously served 

in government as senior counsel to former Senator Tom Harkin, 

and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which 

he chaired, and as chief of the staff in the Department of Justice 

Office of Legislative Affairs during the Obama administration. He’s 

a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of Wisconsin. 

Thank you for joining us today. We really appreciate it. I’m 

going to start off the questions. I think you were going to -- we 

were going to give them some time to talk, or were we just going to 

just launch into questions? 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I think it was five minutes. I think it’s five minutes. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

My apologies. We’re not going to just launch into questions. 

Talk about going cold. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

161 
 

 

So, Dan, why don’t we start with the Majority, and then we’ll 

move to the Minority, but if we give you a few minutes to talk about 

what you see in the legislative path the next couple years. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

Really a hot bench. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Yeah, there you go. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

Not even getting my intro. So I want to thank the Election 

Assistance Commission for the invitation to join you today, and 

most importantly, thank you for your continued commitment to 

improving election administration and election security. It’s an 

honor to be here with the federal agency whose sole mission is to 

improve elections. 

It's also a pleasure to be here with my new colleague, Allison 

Tuck, from the Ranking Member’s staff. The Rules Committee has 

a tradition of working together in a bipartisan way, and Senators 

Klobuchar and Fischer have continued that tradition. 

Just illustratively, they introduced together a bipartisan bill on 

the top legislative recommendation of the FEC. In March, they led 

a bipartisan hearing on the work of state and local officials who 

administer our elections. And Senator Klobuchar really, really looks 

162 
 

forward to working in a bipartisan manner with the Ranking 

Member. 

As you know, state and local election officials across the 

country worked tirelessly in the leadup to the 2022 midterm 

elections, ensuring over 111 million Americans could securely cast 

their ballots. But there’s no break, as you very well know. The 

2024 primary elections are less than a year away, and we know 

effective election administration takes dedicated planning and 

resources. 

One area that I want to highlight that is particularly urgent 

and of import to Senator Klobuchar is the need to counter the 

barrage of threats and harassment targeting election workers. 

According to a survey released just today by the Brennan Center, 

nearly one in three location election officials have experienced 

threats, harassment, or abuse. State and local election officials 

from both parties have testified before the Committee about the 

threats and harassment that they’ve had to endure. These 

dedicated public servants should be able to do their jobs without 

fear or intimidation. 

That’s why this week, Senator Klobuchar will reintroduce 

comprehensive legislation, the Election Workers Protection Act, to 

provide states with the resources to recruit and train election 

workers and to invest in election worker safety. 

163 
 

 

 

 

 

I know this is an issue that --

MR. DICKSON: 

I’m sorry. Repeat the name of that act. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Yes. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

It will be the Election Workers Protection Act, and that will be 

introduced likely tomorrow. 

I know this is an issue that the EAC is focused on as well. 

Last year, again in a bipartisan manner, Senators Klobuchar and 

then-Ranking Member Blunt, wrote to allow state and local election 

officials to use federal funding to protect election workers. That 

was after the release of a legal opinion by the GAO. And 

Senator Klobuchar and Senator Dick Durbin, as the chair of the 

Judiciary Committee, have also led their colleagues in urging the 

Department of Justice to take additional action to protect election 

workers from threats to their safety. 

Beyond that critical issue, Senator Klobuchar is focused on 

making sure that state and local governments have a steady and 

reliable stream of federal funding for elections. Your work is so 

important, and Senator Klobuchar is committed to working to 

ensure the Commission has the resources and expertise it needs to 

164 
 

 

 

be successful and that those resources reach local election officials 

directly. 

Finally, I want to note that, in many states, voters continue to 

face new laws that will make it harder to vote, and 

Senator Klobuchar continues to work to advance commonsense 

reforms that make it easier for voters to exercise the franchise. 

In conclusion, my colleagues and I in the Majority office are 

here to listen and work with you, and with Senator Fischer and her 

staff in a bipartisan manner in our shared goals of improving the 

administration of our elections, supporting our election workers, and 

improving our democracy. Please -- and I emphasize this. Please 

reach out any time with your thoughts, your feedback, and how we 

can better support the critical work that you do. 

So with that, I think I’d turn it over to Allison. 

MS. TUCK: 

Thank you very much, Dan, and thank you, 

Commissioner Palmer, for that introduction. I’m honored to speak 

here today on behalf of Senator Deb Fischer, the new Ranking 

Member of the Rules Committee. She has asked me to convey her 

support for the crucial work at the EAC, Commissioners, and staff, 

and the Board of Advisors in promoting best practices and 

guidelines that help ensure the integrity of our electoral process. 

165 
 

 

 

Thank you, all, for your commitment to this important work and for 

your service to our country. 

Senate Republicans recognize that the EAC plays a pivotal 

role in supporting and promoting fair, accessible, and secure 

elections across the United States. With that in mind, Senator 

Fischer’s view is that elections are, and should continue to be, run 

at the state and local level. The federal government can support 

those efforts, but it’s the states’ responsibility, under the 

Constitution, to make decisions about the particulars. 

And she appreciates that the EAC through its programs and 

initiatives, has provided states with the resources to develop 

individualized approaches to improving their processes, 

modernizing voting systems, and enhancing the accessibility and 

security of the voting process. Every state’s needs and concerns 

are different, and we simply don’t think it’s the ideal approach to 

impose ill-fitting federal mandates that don’t actually solve states’ 

problems. 

Recent years have seen a rise in attempts to undermine the 

security of our elections. Senator Fischer believes the EAC has a 

critical role to play in helping states to recognize these risks and 

counter these threats in order to protect the integrity of our 

elections. She also recognizes that the success of the EAC’s 

166 
 

 

 

efforts, through its various programs and initiatives, ultimately 

depends on adequate funding. 

It is her intent to continue to support the EAC in its vital work, 

and we in the Senate look forward to hearing about how the 75 

million in HAVA funds appropriated in fiscal 2022 is being put to 

use and what else can be done. 

Looking forward, I want to echo my colleague, Dan, and 

make it clear that Rules Minority’s door is open. The first hearing 

that the Committee hosted this Congress, as Dan said, was on the 

topic of state and local perspectives on election administration. So 

I know this is top of mind on both sides of the aisle. 

I would greatly appreciate -- and I also mean this -- hearing 

from state and federal officials about their views, especially on the 

topic of improving the resilience and cybersecurity of election 

infrastructure. It’s Senator Fischer’s and my intent to approach 

these issues with an open mind and to work collaboratively and in 

good faith with our friends in the Senate Majority and in the House 

to support the EAC in its mandate and mission. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, I’ll get started. There’s a couple questions, but I will 

start with what I thought is an interesting question I’d like to hear. 

In your engagement with constituents and the broader American 

167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

public, what are you hearing, in terms of voter confidence in 

elections? I’ve seen some polls not so good, some okay. What are 

you hearing, and what are your thoughts on those? 

MS. TUCK: 

Sure. So at our hearing, we brought in the Nebraska 

Secretary of State and Howie Knapp from South Carolina, and I 

think that they had a number of concerns at their hearing from their 

constituents, so that’s the perspective that I’m able to offer. 

Senator Fischer is new, so we’re still gathering information. 

But I think that cybersecurity is top of mind. I think that 

ensuring that strong voter ID laws are in place are something that 

actually inspires voter confidence. That’s a bipartisan issue, and 

that’s a state law issue. But I think that there has been a low point 

in recent years, but it’s steadily improve, from what I understand 

from the people we’ve spoken with. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

I want to echo how valuable the bipartisan hearing we had is 

and hearing from election officials from both parties. I think what 

Senator Klobuchar is hearing from voters are -- again, I emphasize 

the commonsense reforms that will make it easier for voters to 

exercise the franchise. That’s number one that she’s heard from a 

lot of constituents. I think she’d say that she’s proud of the fact that 

Minnesota has the highest voter rate in the country of any state, 

168 
 

 

that people are proud of their civic engagement in Minnesota, and 

that can be really a model for the rest of the country and how do we 

encourage everybody who wants to participate in our democracy to 

participate in our democracy. 

I do want to pivot back to what we’re hearing from folks on 

the ground. I can’t emphasize enough the election worker 

protection. We hear from election workers regularly on how critical 

that issue is and how that has increased as an issue over the last 

several years. 

I don't know how many people saw the Brennan Center 

report that just came out a few hours ago, but not only did it 

highlight the threats that election workers are receiving, but the 

number of election workers, as I’m sure you know, who are leaving 

their work, and I think that the figure was -- I’m not going to say a 

percentage, but it was an incredibly high percentage of turnover 

among election workers, which is creating a challenge as we go 

into 2024. Just losing that institutional knowledge, people who 

knew what they’re doing on the ground and having to train people 

up. 

So those are two critical issues I think going into 2024. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So one more question before we turn it over to the members 

for questions. You mentioned that you have open doors, and I 

169 
 

 

 

 

 

 

think I’ve at least visited you, Allison, and I’ll hope to visit you, Dan. 

How can this Board be informative to Congress on issues around 

election administration? Is it phone calls and e-mails, or is it inperson visits? What’s your advice to the members? 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

Any and all of those. With all seriousness, looking around 

this room, the amount of immense knowledge about what’s 

happening across the country is so critical. And this goes to the 

question you just asked about what are we hearing. You’re on the 

front lines, hearing from how elections are being administered 

throughout the country and how Congress can assist you and 

assist people on the ground to make sure our elections are run as 

smoothly as possible. 

So please, whether just anecdotal experiences or more datadriven evidence, but please, please call, e-mail, knock on our 

doors, especially -- I think the Senate Rules Committee was in 

charge of recently changing, moving past COVID, so people can 

now enter the building. So please, please stop by and share the 

experiences that you’re hearing and how we can work in a 

bipartisan manner to address the issues. So please come by. 

MS. TUCK: 

Yep, I agree. I echo everything that Dan said. The center is 

open for business. I’m not particular about how information comes 

170 
 

 

 

to me. I answer my phone. I respond to e-mails. I take in-person 

meetings. I like in-person meetings, so, you know, I’m eager to 

hear everything. You know, state officials know what’s happening 

on the ground, and that’s the most important information, and so 

please reach out or hold a stack of cards with me, so --

[Laughter] 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

And the only thing I’d add is also a reminder that while we’re 

the Chair and Ranking who are sitting here, it’s a broad Committee, 

and so please, please communicate with others, not only on the 

Commission but the full Senate and House, to make sure that 

they’re also aware of your concerns. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Yeah. With that, we have time for a few questions. Are 

there any members that would like to ask a question? Mr. Moore? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’m not asking a question, but I’m going to defer my question 

to a member who has to leave, I know, at 2:00. I think she knows 

who I’m going to mention, but Secretary Way is the president of the 

National Association for Secretaries of State. I know she has to 

leave at 2:00, so I just wanted to give her the first option, if she had 

a question or a comment that she’d like to make before she has to 

leave. 

171 
 

 

 

 

MS. WAY: 

Thank you, Greg, for putting me on the spot. 

[Laughter] 

MS. WAY: 

That’s what they do. That’s what they do. Yes, I’m the 

New Jersey Secretary of State and also the NASS president, and 

that’s a high privilege for me. And I thank each and every one of 

you for, you know, speaking about the necessary ideal, if you will, 

that we need to put into place. 

I actually, as the New Jersey Secretary of State, signed onto 

the letter in support of Senator Klobuchar’s Election Security 

Protection Act, and it is important for all of us to realize that on the 

ground, the election workers are truly bureaucrats, and I sit with 

them, and it’s not the focus of which party, if you should say, so 

they are human beings, and they are on the front lines and are 

standing up to our democracy, and that’s why we should all, you 

know, make certain that they are safeguarded, too, so that we can 

have a democracy continuing. 

Now, I do have a question for either of you. Have there 

been any thought to also include a component of election, the 

education of what is going on and what voters need to know in 

support of that? I know, in speaking of New Jersey, we do invest 

funds for voter education. And it’s key, because nowadays, our 

172 
 

 

 

 

voters can somewhat conflate and confuse our rules with other 

states. So I just feel as though, has there been any thoughts in 

terms of, you know, any dollars, any resources to be included in the 

voter education, especially with mis- and disinformation that’s going 

on? 

And then finally, I’ll just wrap this up by saying, you know, 

now, as President of the National Association of Secretaires of 

State, it’s always good to have the partner, such as the EAC, 

alongside of us, because it is a team sport. I think that secretaries 

welcome communication and also the partnerships that can be 

aligned throughout the various levels of government to support our 

democracy. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

First of all, thank you for everything you’re doing back in 

New Jersey and with the organization. 

I know Senator Klobuchar is giving great thought to the issue 

of misinformation. It’s obviously a broader issue than just confusing 

laws or educating voters, so I’d love to continue the conversation 

with you as to your thoughts as we look at the broad issue of 

misinformation. 

MS. TUCK: 

I agree. I don't have anything on my docket right now on 

that particular issue, but I’m eager to hear more. 

173 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I think I saw Mr. Fey’s hand first. 

MR. FEY: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi. My name’s Eric Fey. I’m the 

Director of Elections in St. Louis County, Missouri. 

And my question’s about funding. That always comes up. 

And not so much the amount or frequency of it. I mean, that is 

often debated, but the point that I try to make to congressional 

members or staffers, whenever the opportunity presents itself, is 

that we would really like -- and when I say we, local election 

officials -- would like some mechanism for federal funding to come 

directly to local election offices. 

You know, in Missouri, we had an instance where, you know, 

the funding comes to the Secretary of State’s office, and at least 

one of the traunches of funding from 2020, the Secretary of State 

used some of it for his purposes, sent the rest back to the federal 

government, never funneled it down to the counties. 

So I think, again, I would just like to reemphasize that and for 

you all, in a bipartisan manner, to figure out a way, maybe in the 

spirit of Roy Blunt, who is our former senator, who was always an 

advocate for local election administrators and state election 

administration, to find a way for -- because states obviously need 

174 
 

 

 

 

 

some of the funding, right, but if there’s no guarantee that it gets 

down to the locals, it can be problematic. 

MS. TUCK: 

I really appreciate hearing that. It’s not a dynamic I was 

really aware of. I know that some of these funds remain unspent 

after they’re appropriated for a period of time, but that’s very good 

to know. I mean, we are appropriating this money, and we want it 

all to be used. We don’t want it to necessarily be sent back. It 

should be put to good use, because the Senate and House have 

determined that’s what is needed. So I would like to continue the 

conversation about that. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

And Senator Klobuchar, first of all, has committed to just 

ensuring the Commission has the resources it needs. Within that 

context, she has written to encourage that resources reach local 

officials directly. I can get you a copy of the letters that she’s sent 

in the past on that and work with you going forward. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Time for one more. I think Cleta was next. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Thank you for coming. My name is Cleta Mitchell. I’m an 

appointee, designated by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

175 
 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to go back to this legislation, this federal bill that 

you’re saying is going to be introduced by Representative --

Senator Klobuchar. None of us want anybody to receive threats. I 

get threats all the time. I don't like them. We don’t want people to 

receive threats. 

But I’m wondering two things. Number one, why is it 

necessary for the federal government to come in and create a new 

law when, in fact, last year, speaking of bipartisanship, there was a 

bipartisan agreement in the Senate to change the language and to 

have a provision in the Electoral Count Act Reform bill that was 

agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that that would be in lieu of 

Senator Klobuchar’s initial language. 

So if you’re really bipartisan, why wouldn’t you just say we 

have addressed this and whatever other issues remain are to be 

dealt with at the state level? It’s already against the law to threaten 

people, to levy death threats against people. 

And the other thing, and then I’ll stop, but the thing that I 

worry about is that this narrative is having the effect of chilling the 

willingness of another part of the election process and that’s the 

citizen observers. And many jurisdictions use the narrative as a 

basis for restricting access to observers during the 2022 elections 

because of the perceived threats to election workers. 

176 
 

 

None of the prosecutions -- and there were only four or five 

that the Department of Justice has reported. None of those 

prosecutions involved observers. They involved citizens making 

phone calls or Instagram posts. None of them involved observers, 

but this is being used as a cajole to stop citizens and to chill their 

involvement as observers when 48 of the 50 states have a statutory 

provision for election observers, citizen observers. 

So I just want to push back on this narrative a bit, because it 

has an ill effect that I don't think you’re really thinking about when 

you just keep talking about the threats to election workers. I know 

of particular instances where voters came in and attacked 

observers because they’ve been about how bad the observers 

were and what a danger they were to democracy. 

So just know there are some of us who are pretty worried 

about this narrative, and I’m wondering why we’re going back to it. 

MR. GOLDBERG: 

Well, first of all, thank you very much for the thoughts, and to 

emphasize what I said earlier, hopefully we can continue a 

dialogue. 

I think Senator Klobuchar continues to hear from people on 

the ground, Republican and Democratic election officials. The 

Brennan Center report that just came out today, one third of 

election workers indicated they have faced threats and harassment 

177 
 

 

and feels that the approach put forward in the legislation, the 

comprehensive report to provide states with the resources to 

recruit, to retain election workers, and to invest in election worker 

safety is an approach that is supported by officials from both sides 

of the aisles, across the country, and will give the resources to 

make sure that people who are devoting their Tuesdays, or 

broader, to making sure that everybody can exercise their most 

important right to the franchise, feel safe in doing so. 

So, we would love to hear your specific concerns with 

specific provisions, and please keep the dialogue up. But I think in 

hearing after hearing, and just from hearing people that this 

remains a serious problem that she feels that this approach to 

provide resources to the states to make sure that these critical 

workers feel safe and are safe is an important legislation to 

advance. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, that was all the time we had for questions. I want to 

thank our guest for coming. We appreciate it, and we’ll be in touch. 

MS. TUCK: 

The door is open. 

[Applause] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

178 
 

 

 

Our next guest is Jay Swanson with Senator Warner’s office, 

and there’s been some discussion, both in the community and now 

apparently in the Congress on the Vulnerability Disclosure 

Programs and the contour of that. I’ll turn it over to you, Jay, and 

let you discuss the legislation that you’re working on. 

MR. SWANSON: 

Well, great. Thank you very much for that. And thank you. 

I’m a late add, so I’ll be very quick and respectful of your time. 

I’m here to discuss Senator Warner and Senator Collins’s 

Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for 

Elections through Independent Testing Act. That spells out 

SECURE IT, if you were paying attention. 

[Laughter] 

MR. SWANSON: 

So, the SECURE IT Act is a proposal that will likely be 

introduced sometime next week. As you can tell from the title, the 

goal is to improve the cybersecurity of election systems with a goal 

of improving public confidence in elections. The way we go about 

doing that is by establishing what’s known as a coordinated 

vulnerability disclosure program, a pretty common program that 

exists in many industries, where independent experts can look for 

vulnerabilities and report them confidentially. 

179 
 

 

 

 

How it works in this context is that election systems vendors, 

on a completely voluntary basis, would make their systems 

available to the Election Assistance Commission, who then would, 

in turn, allow a certain select group of vetted, independent, 

cybersecurity experts to spend some time with these systems, to 

run their tests on them, to look for vulnerabilities. If they find 

vulnerabilities, they are to report them to the Commission and to 

the vendor. 

Once that reporting happens, there’s a 180-day 

confidentiality window. During that time, the vendor is going to be 

working on coming up with a way to fix the vulnerability, likely with 

a patch or some other kind of fix. If it’s a fix that needs to be 

certified by the Commission, the Commission will have an 

expedited way to review it and approve it. And at the close of that 

180-day period, the researcher is then allowed to publish what they 

found, and the vulnerability will be included in the database of 

cybersecurity vulnerabilities maintained with funding from the 

Cybersecurity Infrastructure Administration System. 

So, I want to emphasize a couple things. One is, it’s a 

purely voluntary program. It’s not tied to certification, in any way. 

Election systems vendors, if they want, can do it. I think a lot of 

them are interested, because they want to be able to say 

independent experts have looked at our system and we fixed the 

180 
 

 

 

 

vulnerabilities that they found. But if they don’t want to do it, they 

don’t have to. 

And same on the researcher side. We anticipate most of 

these will be academic researchers who are doing it with the goal to 

publish once that 180-day window is over. 

So that’s our proposal. We feel cautiously optimistic of its 

passage, given its bipartisan support and the support we’ve had 

from the industry as well as from the independent cybersecurity 

researcher community. 

But that being said, always welcome to listen to feedback 

and take other comments or questions. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So we have time for maybe one or two questions. Are there 

any questions from the members? Okay. Do we have one? 

MR. SWANSON: 

No, just a thumbs-up. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Okay. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you, Jay and Dan and Allison. Thank you for joining 

us today, this lively discussion. All right. Thanks. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

181 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me first of all thank you, all, again, for coming, and 

appreciate you taking the time. 

We have a delegation that’s with us, and Sara, are you 

anywhere nearby? Sara Brady? Just so you understand who’s 

behind us and we can properly walk them down. This is the 

International Visitor Leadership Program for U.S. Elections and 

Civic Engagement from Poland, and they’re here as courtesy of the 

U.S. State Department, so they’re here to observe our meeting. 

And I know we are going to be tight in here, but we thank you all for 

coming. And some of them will be in the overflow room there, but 

they are very interested in what our work is here in U.S. elections, 

and this group is identified as a major player in that, and so that’s 

one of the reasons why we have such a large turnout. 

So that’s the reason why we have a big crowd, but let’s at 

least welcome them for our meeting. 

[Applause] 

THREATS TO ELECTION OFFICIALS AND WORKING WITH LAW 

ENFORCEMENT PANEL AND DISCUSSION 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I think we’re going to go into our next panel. The next panel 

is going to be led by Jenny Carroll. It is the Threats to Election 

Officials and Working with Law Enforcement Panel and Discussion. 

182 
 

 

Jenny, we’re going to ask you to go to the front and the panel, 

Ricky, as well as -- okay. The panel with the Threats to the 

Election Official. Jenny Carroll is going to be moderating and Ryan 

Arbon, the sheriff from Weber County, Utah, Ricky Hatch, a clerk 

from Utah, Weber County, and our Vice-Chair, and Chris Walker, a 

county clerk from Jackson County, Oregon. 

So, we’ll turn it over to you, Jenny, as our moderator. And 

thank you, again, for taking on this responsibility. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Thank you. So my name is Jenny Carroll. I do have the 

pleasure of moderating this panel. We’re talking about threats to 

election officials. This is a particularly interesting question. Some 

of you may know the U.S. Supreme Court recently has taken up, in 

Counterman v. Colorado, a question of what true threats are. 

Of course, what we’re talking about today is going to extend 

beyond the criminal definition of true threats. As a criminal legal 

scholar, it’s a thing near and dear to my heart, but I think it’s 

important to stress that we’re talking about both threats and 

harassment when we address this issue, and we want to think 

creatively about ways to solve it, so we welcome your feedback. 

I did do a quick docket search to find out how many 

prosecutions were seen of these types of cases, and I also got a 

little bit of help from my friend at the DOJ to confirm this. There 

183 
 

 

 

have been 12 federal prosecutions of individuals accused of 

threatening election officials. Three have resulted in pleas. There 

are three state prosecutions that have gone forward that I was able 

to locate with regard to allegations of threats or harassment against 

election officials. And of course, there’s a great variety among the 

states in terms of what qualifies as a prosecutorial offense. 

With me today, and just to let you know how the panel is 

going to work, we’re going to hear from folks on the panel, and then 

we hope to have time for questions and feedback from you all. 

So I have Ryan Arbon. He is the sheriff of Weber County, 

Utah. He has worked in law enforcement for over 25 years. He is 

going to be presenting alongside of Ricky Hatch. 

Ricky Hatch, of course, is the Weber County Clerk and 

Auditor for the State of Utah. Prior to being elected as the Weber 

County Clerk or Auditor, he had worked as an information systems 

auditor and consultant. He also serves as the chairman of the 

election subcommittee for the National Association of Counties, and 

of course serves on our Board of Directors, so welcome. 

And then we have Chris Walker. She is the Jackson County 

Clerk. She has over 28 years practical experience in both elections 

and recording programs, and she brings an exuberant approach to 

the citizens of Jackson County. She indicates that she views her 

role as the county clerk as the guardian of the people’s voice, and 

184 
 

 

 

 

her priority is to have objective, fair, and impartial performance of 

her duties. 

So with that, I’m going to turn it over to Ryan and Ricky. 

MR. HATCH: 

Thank you, Jenny, and welcome to our Polish designation. I 

was fortunate to live in Poland for 18 months. I lived and worked in 

Warsaw for Price Waterhouse, so pardon the horrible accent, but 

(Speaking Polish). 

[Laughter] 

[Applause] 

MR. HATCH: 

Okay. Let’s talk. We’re just going to talk just for a few 

minutes and then generate, hopefully, some questions. I am 

excited to hear as well from Chris. 

First off, we’re from Utah. Weber County is just north of Salt 

Lake. It’s a red county, and if you’ve ever moved to Utah or come 

to Utah, it’s a nice place to live. Before you even unpack your UHaul, there will be cookies on your doorstep and invitations to 

dinner. That’s just how it is. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

But there’s also an ugly side, like there is anywhere across 

the country, and these are threats that were received both by 

185 
 

 

neighboring counties, as well as my county, just in the past couple 

of years. And so there is a need. There is a concern among 

election officials, including my own, who, on a Friday night, didn’t 

dare leave the office for a couple of hours until we had the sheriff’s 

office come and help them. 

And so there’s a need across the country, and we want to 

talk real briefly about how our departments, the sheriff’s and the 

elections office, partnered to help address that need. 

Our solution was, we need to partner. We needed to team 

up. We both share very similar processes, similar goals, where we 

serve the public. I am -- to quote Tina Barton -- tasked to make 

sure that everybody can vote and the sheriff is there to make sure 

that I’m safe as well as the voters and observers and everybody. 

And the key is communication. And the more we work together, the 

more effective we can be. 

We follow the five steps of the Commission for Safe and 

Secure Elections. This is an organization that was created a little 

over a year ago to help partner and foster this coordination among 

these various offices, to make sure that things are done properly 

and safely. And really, for these five, the most important one is 

starting with friendship, or at least respect. Sheriff Arbon and I 

have known each other for probably about five or six years now, 

186 
 

 

 

and get along. I’ll let him talk on it for his side, but I get along with 

him quite well, and I don’t find him annoying at all. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

But the key thing is we have a relationship. We talk to each 

other. And when we started seeing these challenges come up, I 

called him, and we had several great discussions about some of 

the concerns. And we said, well, let’s take it a little farther. Let’s 

set up a meeting and have a discussion amongst law enforcement 

and elections, to see what else we can do to help solidify this. And 

it was at that point that we went ahead and set it up and decided to 

send an e-mail. The e-mail went to, obviously, my elections 

director, to our county attorney, to the sheriff, to our state elections 

office, and then CSOC had a facilitator of Tina Barton, who was 

very helpful. And we invited them to a meeting. 

The cool thing about this, I tend to think small. Sheriff Arbon 

tends to think big, and he said, why are we limiting this just to our 

county? This is good stuff. Let’s expand it. And so with his 

suggestion, we expanded that out to about six or seven neighboring 

counties, and this became a regional meeting, where we invited 

both county- and city-level law enforcement to come and participate 

as well as their attorney’s office and the election officials. 

187 
 

 

 

 

 

 

I just realized I’ve been talking nonstop. Do you have 

anything you want to add? 

MR. ARBON: 

I do. Thank you, Chairman, and the Board members. I 

appreciate this opportunity to be here to speak today. Thank you 

very much. 

One thing that Ricky was pointing out is the first key part of 

this is discussion and having a professional friendship, if you will. 

Utah, I think, is the 12th largest state. We only have 29 counties, 

and so some of our counties are very large and covers a lot of 

territory, and hence the word territory, a lot of you can imagine that 

sheriffs and chiefs like to own their own territory. And so 

sometimes the sheriff being involved or the state involved can be a 

really large challenge. 

The Wasatch Front, where most of the population is, is, you 

know, between Utah County and Weber County. It’s about a million 

and a half or two million people there, and so there’s a funny term 

with the sheriffs of Utah. There’s the more moderate sheriffs, or the 

ones that deal with the problems we have today, and then there 

some sheriffs that are in the southern state, and they handle 

business a lot different than we do. A lot of old school, but I do 

admire them. They are very Constitutional-minded. 

188 
 

 

 

 

 

 

But back to this, what we discovered on this regional 

meeting is -- so in our county, the sheriff plays a pivotal role. We’re 

kind of seen as from a lot of it, as Ricky said, it’s a red county, and 

so there’s a lot of red people there. And in their view, the elections 

and other issues can be viewed through a window of Left versus 

Right, and you guys know the problems that come from that. 

But what we discovered, when we made this as a regional 

thing, is the sheriff may be the election official and he’s in charge, 

but they want to do things their own way. What was interesting is 

we never saw any of that. We saw individuals that thought, you 

know what, this is an election thing. Sheriff, you know what you’re 

doing. You take care of it. If there’s any problems in my city, you 

come handle it. It was pretty fascinating, and I wanted to do that. 

Law enforcement does not get trained in our academies to 

handle election laws. We just don’t, and they should be, or they 

should, within the office, during the election time, be aware of these 

laws. And with us, we were trained and ready for that. 

MR. HATCH: 

Great. So we decided to put this event together. We had 

key presenters. We brought in, from out of state, our CSOC 

representative, as well as Harold Love, who represented from a law 

enforcement. He came from Michigan. And they talked about that 

this was a national issue, not just something that was local to Utah. 

189 
 

 

We had our state elections director present as well, and 

really, one of the main goals was to have him go through some of 

the key controls in elections to help assuage some of the fears that 

our attendees might have, some of the chiefs of police or other 

sheriff deputies, that our elections really are secure, and that we 

care very much about having secure and safe elections and 

accurate and well-controlled. 

So we had law enforcement there. We had county 

attorneys. We had, of course, our elections, but we also invited 

other key stakeholders, including the FBI and, you know, the SBI 

state counterpart. The Department of Homeland Security, we had 

officials there from the Department of Homeland Security. And we 

wanted to make sure that our state county association was 

represented and involved and aware, and so we invited the CEO of 

the association as well. 

The agenda was fairly simple. We wanted introductions. 

We wanted to share the history, and especially important was 

understanding each other’s operating environments. And so, I 

spoke, as an elections official, to law enforcement, talking about the 

kind of environment that election officials work in. And then Sheriff 

Arbon, as the law enforcement, spoke to election officials about the 

kind of environment that they work in. 

190 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there were so many similarities and so many overlaps. 

You deal with people who were passionate about the subject. 

You’re very constrained by legal issues and requirements, and so it 

was really eye-opening for each side to hear what the other side 

had to deal with. 

We shared the key information dates, contact information. 

We’ll talk about that a little bit. We’ll give you some examples on 

that. And then we spent quite a bit of time agreeing on boundaries 

and expectations. This was really eye-opening and kind of 

important. We’ll talk about that a little bit. We had our county 

attorney’s office lead that discussion, and it really was very much a 

roundtable kind of participatory information. Then we had Q&A and 

wrap-up, and of course, we gave challenge coins out, because 

that’s like candy for law enforcement. They love the challenge 

coins. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

This is one of the documents that we provided. So we gave, 

to every law enforcement person there. We said, here are the key 

dates of the upcoming election, whether the public’s invited or not, 

the locations, so that they knew kind of what key things would 

happen, because it’s not clear, unless you’re inside elections, that 

191 
 

elections aren’t just one day a year or even one month a year, but 

there’s a lot of stuff that happens beforehand. 

We also provided a contact sheet to every attendee that 

provided the elections information, contact on a county level as well 

as each location. We have drop boxes in every city, and so we 

provided the name and e-mail and phone number of each city 

recorder, including our vote centers and contact information there. 

And we will pass this out. Let’s just go ahead and pass that 

out. We created a pocket guide. This was with the help of CSOC, 

which is unique specific to our state, and it’s a summary and a 

compilation of all of the election laws in the State of Utah. And it’s 

simple enough that it’s something that officers could include on 

their visor or in their pockets, and they could have a quick, ready 

reference to the election law, which, you know, is probably not the 

very first thing that they read when they get certified and start 

working. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

And that was something that was quite well-received. They 

asked to get it electronically so that they could distribute additional 

copies to the various deputies and other law enforcement. 

MR. ARBON: 

192 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, if you don’t mind, Ricky, I’d like to add to that. One 

thing that was really key for this pocket guide, as I mentioned 

earlier, we don’t train on election laws. You know, how many feet 

can you be from where you cast your ballot and where can you be 

according to the location of the front door? This was a clear guide 

of what those rules and laws are so we can enforce them. 

The other thing that was really awesome -- Ricky alluded to 

this -- but right now, the election officials in Weber County are in 

pure harmony. It’s wonderful. We all respect each other. We all 

need each other, and it really helps. And in this process, we had it 

set up, not only in pocket guide, but we also had the designated 

county attorney, his phone number, so he was on call any time. If 

we’d get into a sticky situation, he was ready to help us with 

whatever we needed. 

MR. HATCH: 

Thank you, Sheriff. 

So we went through some what-if scenarios. We ran a very 

small, informal, table-talk exercise. We discussed a few threat 

scenarios and then looked at the relevant election law that was 

there. Surprisingly or not, it revealed that it’s kind of a complex 

environment, and as the sheriff mentioned, there were some 

jurisdictional questions. You know, the sheriff is responsible for all 

cities within the county, but there were chiefs of police there that 

193 
 

 

 

 

said, you know, yeah, it’s within my city, but I kind of don’t want to 

deal with it. And then there were others that said I absolutely do 

want to deal with it. And so it was really interesting to see the 

changes or the differences among the jurisdictions. 

And this was just one example that we read through. You 

know, a person’s standing in the doorway of a vote center, and 

Utah law says that I, as the election director or the county clerk, I 

don't have the authority to remove them, but the sheriff does. And 

that was just another interesting thing. And that’s what we want to 

do is find out where is that line by which I have to go over to him for 

help or vice versa where he can’t help and he has to rely on me. 

And that was a really helpful discussion. 

As far as wrapping up the event, it really was just the starting 

point. The key was to start the communications and to keep those 

lines open, and it was a good event. 

Now, we’ll just talk real briefly about our involvement with 

law enforcement during our post-election audit, because this is a 

crucial piece. We invited our entire Board of Canvass to participate 

actively in the post-election audit. And Sheriff Arbon is one of the 

alternate Board of Canvassers, and so we invited him as well. 

Plus, he had received several challenges or concerns by citizens 

who felt that the processes that the equipment had been hacked or 

the process we were doing were not very good. 

194 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. ARBON: 

And they said this was corrupt. The vote cast system, I must 

be there. I must seize it and take it over and do the count myself. 

And I have no idea how they count the system, so I would probably 

screw it up for sure. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

And I’m glad they went to him. They felt comfortable enough 

to go to the sheriff and that he felt comfortable enough to talk to me 

and say, okay, here are some of the concerns that we’ve received. 

Let’s take a look. And he came and actually participated in the 

audit. He was one of the auditors of the system. 

And I crafted an e-mail that I gave to him that he later sent to 

each of the individuals who requested that he be present, 

requested that he audit the system, and we can talk about what 

happened, what he saw, what he did, and I’ll let you talk to that. 

MR. ARBON: 

Can I add to that, Ricky? 

So, in my business, you guys know we have language: the 

way we say things, the way we do things. You have your language 

as well. So I said, Ricky, I need your help. Craft something that I 

could take and then transform it into this is something from the 

195 
 

 

 

 

 

sheriff. This is not something that was just copy and pasted from 

Ricky. So it was very simple. 

I think I received nine or ten e-mails, urging the sensitive 

material, that I need to intervene, and so I went and participated in 

the audit. I mean, this was great. It was thorough. I mean, law 

enforcement, for any of us to take any action, there’s got to be a 

complaint. There’s got to be some suspicion or probable cause. 

We never saw any of that, but what I gathered from it is all those emails, I think, I believe 90%, based on when my staff looked at it, 

weren’t even from Utah. 

MR. ARBON: 

Right? So who’s involved, right? Who’s coordinating all this 

and trying to go after it? That’s okay. But what I was happy to do, 

as an elected official, is to respond. That is my due diligence, my 

responsibility, and I want to. 

So in this e-mail, I laid it out carefully, and I made it simple, 

like it came from the sheriff. And I broke it all up, and I said, this is 

what I saw. This is what I did. This is what I believe is right. And I 

sent it back. One person responded with thank you. No one else 

did. 

So you wonder if it’s just an attack just to try and disrupt or 

cause problems, but I’ll tell you what. It was awesome to see 

Ricky’s language and able to change it and have this, but also 

196 
 

 

 

 

 

shows the sheriff is doing his due diligence. And I did. I was 

participating. And I was just thankful for that opportunity. 

MR. HATCH: 

And I think those that expressed their concern, at least the 

one that responded, felt comfortable knowing that this process had 

been vetted. And that’s really it. I really appreciated having the 

support of the sheriff. We had bomb dogs sniff our vote center out 

in the morning before election day. It provided tremendous comfort 

to the staff who were there. 

Utah is primarily a vote-by-mail state; although, we do have 

in-person voting as well, and so we had about 100 poll workers 

there on election day and really appreciated the comfort that his 

staff provided. He loaned a couple of his officers there, who were 

in plain clothes, who were basically directing traffic, helping with 

the line, and there to provide a lot of comfort to me, knowing that if 

something did happen, that we were safe. 

MR. ARBON: 

Can I add one thing, Ricky? I get asked this a lot, since I’ve 

been out to these conferences, just how do you get along with your 

election officials and people you work with? And honestly, the 

quick answer is I can threaten them and throw them in jail, but 

that’s not how it works, right? 

[Laughter] 

197 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. HATCH: 

He’s tried that a couple times. 

MR. ARBON: 

But I want to make sure I carefully say this, not to brag or 

anything, but one thing that’s cool about Weber County is, in my 

work with all the sheriffs in the state, there’s so much contention 

with the commissioners or there’s so much contention with the 

treasurer. And you find out why, and it just seems so juvenile, 

candidly. 

And so one thing that I love about Ricky Hatch -- is when I 

got elected about five years ago, he was already in office -- it was 

an agreement of, like, I knew Ricky had needs. I said, Ricky, what 

can I do to help you? He knew I had needs. He’d say, Sheriff, 

what can I help you? And typically, we get territorial. This is mine. 

This is yours. Stay away. We know what we’re doing. 

But eventually, we need each other, and so that’s how you 

see it with all of the election officials is you start off, no, you may 

not be able to help with anything, but what can I help you with? In 

fact, I even opened up my facility to tours, and all these election 

officials have never seen a jail, and every time they come through, 

eight out of ten times they say things like, I had no idea. 

I need these individuals, because in my county, we have 

about 1,200 beds, and I need to do jail expansion, and I need a 

198 
 

 

 

 

 

 

team. And Ricky, I want to give him the information of why I need a 

new jail or an expanded jail, because people are going to ask 

Ricky, because he is the clerk auditor. Is this something he needs? 

And he can speak firsthand, and I don’t want to have him get the 

opportunity, well, the sheriff just sits there, and he’s just angry at 

everybody. I don’t know if he needs one or not. I’ve removed that, 

so he can respond to the public as an election official should do. 

Thank you. 

MS. CARROLL: 

All right. So I’m going to turn it over to Chris, though to be 

clear, we’re not saying we need to expand jails to fill them with 

election officials. 

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

Well, I’m jealous. We have about 230,000 residents in 

Jackson County and only 300-and-something jail beds. It’s really 

problematic. And I’m not saying to jail voters, either. 

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

So thank you for having me, and welcome, everyone. Thank 

you to our colleagues from Poland. I’m glad you’re here to join us. 

First of all, just to clarify, we did a lot the same as what Ricky 

did and the sheriff. I had gone to associations, and we have 

199 
 

conferences, and the SSE presented and talked about the need for 

maybe getting your local law enforcement involved in creating this 

open dialogue, the conversation, and of course, anything we do as 

an elected official is about the relationship, and I think that, to me, 

is key in this whole process. Everybody here’s probably had 

somebody cold-call you and try to sell you something, or you know, 

just off the street. You’re like, well, I don't know this person from 

Adam. What separates them from a person that you have forged a 

relationship with is that relationship. So I think that the number-one 

key in all this is that relationship-building. 

What I did is we did a lot the same. I found some things in 

your presentation that I’m adding to my list to add of people to invite 

to the next time that we sit down for next year with our local law 

enforcement group. 

But for the sake of this conversation, I did reach out to our 

sheriff, because we have a very good working relationship, and I 

mentioned to him what my thoughts were about let’s open this 

dialogue up and bring others in so that they can be a partner in 

what we do to provide not only security for us, as elections 

administrators, but also to show that we have a secure environment 

for our voters as well. 

200 
 

 

 

 

 

So he was just overwhelmed. He said, this is a great idea. 

So he said, listen, we have a local law enforcement luncheon we do 

every quarter, and he said, this would be a perfect opportunity. 

So I was pleasantly happy that we not only had our local 

sheriff and a lot of their higher-up personnel at their office, we had 

the local FBI representative onsite. All the municipalities were 

there. The Oregon State Police had representation. Our local 

ESO, the Emergency Services Operations were there, which is also 

a piece of it that could be involved. We had Josephine County, 

Jackson County, Klamath County all that were in our region as well, 

along with the marshals. The Federal Marshal Service was even 

there. So we had a really great representation from local law 

enforcement. All those mutual-aid communities were there. 

Simply, what I did, just like Ricky, we stood up and talked 

about the conversations. Here’s where I’m going. I’m not asking 

for you to all sit on drop sites or to sit at our office 24/7 during the 

elections, because what one person might look at and think, wow, 

this is a safe and secure environment, another person could feel 

intimidated to vote, because depending on their experiences with 

law enforcement, depending on their experiences in the world of 

the courts and all that. 

So there’s that fine line between security and intimidation, 

and we have to be mindful of all of that, because I have a faction of 

201 
 

 

 

 

 

 

people who call me and say, you need a deputy or a policeman at 

every drop site 24/7. And I say, well, that’s kind of a Catch-22 

there, so again, one thing we have to be really mindful of. 

I simply went up, introduced myself, let them know that 

elections now are designated to DHS and CISA as critical 

infrastructure and fall under the government’s facility 

sector/elections infrastructure subsector just to give some credence 

to why we are making this ask. 

As a side note, we did receive a very serious threat actually 

after we certified the 2020 election, and it was written in probably 

eight- to ten-foot lettering, with a big, white roller brush in our 

parking lot: votes don’t work; next time bullets. And so that is kind 

of what spurred us to think we really need to not only take, in the 

world of cybersecurity very serious, but wait a minute. We’ve got 

this whole other issue that we just take for granted, our physical 

security, which is one thing that we really hadn’t thought about. I 

mean, we do think about it, but it really hadn’t been pronounced in 

our minds. 

So after we went there, we did a lot, again, what Ricky did. I 

gave them an update from the Oregon TIGER Team, which Oregon 

was one of the first in the country to establish. We call it the TIGER 

Team, and I’m fortunate to be on that Board. It is the Threat 

Information-Gathering and Election Resources Team, including all 

202 
 

 

 

the agencies I just spoke about, but also the Department of the 

Military, Secretary of State’s office, county clerk representation, any 

agency that you can imagine that would have to do with physical, 

possibly cybersecurity in the State of Oregon. 

And we have monthly, if not twice-monthly, meetings, 

depending on the urgency. So first things I did was just sit down 

and give them a threat landscape update. Now, most of them are 

already getting this information, because through the State Sheriff's 

Association they get it, but a lot of things, you wonder if that kind of 

-- not that it breezes over, but it goes over the top of the head, 

because they have so many other things on their plate, and that’s 

nothing bad about the sheriff, but you have how many things you’re 

looking at. 

So just gave them a brief threat landscape update and then 

made the ask. This is what we need from you. We need you to 

partner with us, to ensure the physical security, not only of our 

buildings, but the physical security, especially now at those evercontroversial ballot drop boxes that we’ve had, which had really no 

look at them in the past, and now, all of a sudden, the accusations 

of fraud at those ballot boxes, which is something new to us, 

because in Oregon, vote by mail has been around since the ’80s. 

Our first vote-by-mail election was conducted in 1981. Drop 

boxes in our state have been around forever. Now, all of a sudden, 

203 
 

 

 

usually it was the USPS that came out for a while that, oh, they’re 

removing boxes. They’re taking and removing sorters leading up to 

an election. Well, it was just bad timing. It was a normal part of 

their business structure. 

So back in, what was it, 2016, that was the controversy. 

Now, in 2020, of course now it’s all these drop boxes. So we took 

time to sit down with them. They asked questions. They were very 

engaged, even asked substantive questions about the processes 

and procedures, some of the things we do, redundancies built into 

our processes, and I was welcome to answer those questions. 

But ultimately, in the end what I did, after we had the 

conversation, and I had prepared each of them a packet, and it had 

multiple items in that, and I will change that based on some of our 

conversations, but I provided the Know Your Rights as an Oregon 

Voter, which was also posted on every ballot drop box, official ballot 

drop box. I put in a law enforcement frequently asked questions, to 

answer some of those questions they may have. I put in the drop 

site schedules, not necessarily for public view, so they knew when 

our regular pickups were going to happen throughout the election 

cycle, the drop site locations, as Ricky did as well. 

I put in an Important Dates for the Future document, to show 

these are the key dates for us for deadlines and what we’re leading 

up to, certifications, things like that. I put in the great Federal 

204 
 

 

Elections flyer that was provided to us, this guy here. So they knew 

that there are resources at the federal level as well. A nonconfrontational techniques flyer, which of course I don't have to tell 

law enforcement, but for this sake, we’re talking voters, not, you 

know, somebody who just robbed a bank or committed another 

crime, as well as our emergency action plan. I sat down with my 

staff, and we came up with, hey, here’s some scenarios. How are 

we going to react during an election if these things happen? And I 

can always make this better, so that’s the great part about having 

this conversation is we’re going to learn from these things. 

So in the end, it was a hugely beneficial conversation, one 

that we should have had a long time ago, but quite frankly, when 

things are out of sight, they’re out of mind, and until this heightened 

sense of security issues, both physical, cyber, et cetera came 

about, it was something that we just had taken for granted. 

It also let us know the importance of our pretesting of all of 

our systems, making sure that we are fortunate to have a backup 

generator that basically 100% of all of our things operate even if we 

have no power. We check our backup internet provider. We check 

all of our systems to make sure, which was also a huge part of this 

as well, and how are we going to respond to those. 

So that, right now, is about all I have here. Oh, also a piece 

of this was also our protective security advisors from DHS, which 

205 
 

 

kind of gave us a footprint based on their report of how to move 

forward with further protecting ourselves in that realm. 

So that’s kind of our story and where we got. I didn’t have 

any visuals, but I thought it was important to pass along what we 

did around there, so thank you. 

MS. CARROLL: 

So, at this point, we want to open it up to questions, and I’m 

going to exercise a slight moderator’s prerogative and ask the first 

question. It was something, actually, that, Chris, you brought up, 

and I’m glad you did, and I think it’s come up in some of the other 

conversations we’ve had around the table of striking that balance 

between keeping those who are doing the work of elections safe, 

but also promoting voting, not intimidating potential voters, and also 

not intimidating citizens who do want to be involved and want to be 

aware of what’s going on with the elections and do feel, and I think 

we would all agree, have some interest in the outcome of these 

elections and want to make sure that they’re proceeding in a fair 

way, so that balance between needing to keep folks safe and 

ensuring access and not having a chilling effect. 

If you all can speak a little bit to how you struck that balance, 

that would be great. 

MR. HATCH: 

206 
 

 

 

For us, we kind of view those as almost completely separate 

and not even competing interests. For us, it’s super crucial that 

everything that we do in elections is open to inspection, to public 

inspection. And we feel that that’s important, whether the person 

sitting and observing thinks that I’m a total crook, I still want to 

welcome them there and have them view that process. I don't want 

to push that back at all. That’s crucial to public confidence. 

Similarly crucial is keeping my staff and our election workers 

and the voters and those observers safe, and I firmly believe that 

you can achieve both of those without conflict. 

MS. WALKER: 

And on our end, we’ve been very open. We have the 

program for the observers. We allow them onsite, inside, to be able 

to observe the processes. But one of the things we do let them 

know, we welcome you. We want a transparent process, but we 

have to follow the laws and the rules, but our observers also have 

to follow those laws and rules. We do get a lot of people say, well, 

you’re doing this. You’re doing that. You know, where are the 

hidden ballots that you insert in all those thousands of envelopes 

when we’re not here? 

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

207 
 

 

 

And there does have to be a certain source of trust with that, 

but I remind them that everything we do is under 24-hour motionactivated cameras. You know, between the audits, we do all of the 

ballot-tracking worksheets, the things that have to follow those 

ballots, what goes through the centralized voter registration, 

showing that they’ve tallied their ballot, has to be what went through 

the tally equipment, minus, of course, any -- believe it or not, we 

have people that turn ballot envelopes in, sign it, they get credit for 

voting, no ballot in the envelope. It just floors you. But again, the 

transparency of it’s hugely important, but we require them to follow 

the rules, just like we have to follow the rules. 

I explain that, especially when I get a naysayer say, why do 

you do this, or this doesn’t make sense, and why can’t you do this? 

Why can’t you hand-count and do all these? Well, when I took my 

oath of office, I swore to the Constitution of the United States, the 

Constitution of the State of Oregon, and the laws thereof. Good, 

bad, or indifferent, and whether I agree with it or not is not the point. 

The point is we have to follow the laws. If we cease to do that, then 

society does not exist or function. So I try to remind people that 

whether you like it or not, whether I like it, it is the law, and this is 

what we have to do. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

208 
 

 

 

 

Jenny, just so you know, we have time for about one or two 

questions. We have to leave in five minutes for the photo. 

MS. CARROLL: 

No worries. So maybe we can take questions, and then we’ll 

let the panel respond to the questions, so we can maybe get two in 

and then --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’ve had a burning one, if I could. 

MS. CARROLL: 

Oh, please. Let’s hear it. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And I promised I wouldn’t do this through the meeting, so 

this jurisdictional question, Ricky, that you raised was intriguing to 

me, because I know that jurisdictions have different jurisdictions, all 

right? You have the county, state, local, and now even federal 

government jurisdictions coming in with some type of oversight, so 

how is that actually done? 

And the second part is just whether or not that matrix 

includes, you know, the other election integrity groups that are out 

there who do election protection, because they’re a part of that 

troop lineup, too, around election day. Do they fit into that matrix, 

or are they sort of separate and apart for that? 

MR. HATCH: 

209 
 

That’s a good, burning question. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

For us, the discussion really centered around both centers 

and as well as our central processing. So Weber County, about 

half the county is unincorporated, where the sheriff is the lone law 

enforcer, but the rest are within cities, including the ballot 

processing center and both of our vote centers that we have. 

And the questions that came around the jurisdiction were, 

within those cities, what the officers want to do, how much 

involvement they wanted in elections-related situations, and then 

you just coupled that with the fact that we had drop boxes in every 

city in the county as well. 

And in Utah, drop boxes are considered polling places, so 

you have the 150-foot electioneering rule around drop boxes, and 

you could have voter advocacy groups that could go out and 

potentially film people dropping their ballots off or possibly 

intimidate. 

So it was an interesting discussion we had, and we had 

different responses among the cities, and I don't know that we had 

a canned solution, but the discussion itself was actually quite 

helpful. 

MR. ARBON: 

210 
 

 

I believe, too, Ricky, we had a couple of groups that selfappointed to take security of the ballot boxes to park by and make 

sure everything goes just right. 

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

We did as well. We had that as well, and so we were 

constantly getting questions about, hey, these people were filming 

me. This guy confronted me, because I had my husband’s ballot 

with me, wanted to know why I had two ballots, those type of 

issues. And in Oregon, you can do that. You know, I had never 

heard the term ballot-harvesting until recent time, because we’ve 

always done it that way. 

We, as well -- the jurisdictional part wasn’t -- we gave away 

that law enforcement frequently asked questions, and again, I 

wanted them to be very broad, but they rose to the occasion. I told 

them, just on your regular patrols, make a heightened sense of just 

driving by, patrolling. You don’t have to sit at that box, but at 8:00 

election night, when we closed all those ballot boxes, I wanted my 

teams to know that they weren’t going to be intimidated to close 

those boxes, either. And we had people trying, so it really helped 

to have law enforcement onsite with them, to make sure that that 

final pickup went off without a hitch. That was great. 

211 
 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, one of the things, too, just to follow-up, you know, 

history repeats itself. And I’ve been doing some reading. If 

anybody’s interested in a book, it’s called the Jackson County 

Rebellion that recently came out about a story of ballot theft and 

how a constable was actually murdered investigating ballot theft in 

my county. And I started looking back and the Jackson County 

Rebellion, it was in 1932 and ’33. Well then, if anyone of you are 

aware of, you ever heard of the Rajneeshpuram that happened in 

the 1980s in Oregon, where the cook came in and took over a city 

of Antelope, Oregon, in Wasco County, and tried to take over 

county government by poisoning people at salad bars, so they 

wouldn’t show up to vote at the polls. Watch Wild Wild Country, 

Rajneeshpuram on Netflix. 

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

It’ll tell you the story. And then, of course, ever recently, in 

2016, the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the trying to take over in that 

community based on elections. They shipped people in to try and 

take over. So I’m serious. History will repeat itself. This is not 

new. It might be a little different context, but everything we’re going 

through now, we’ve experienced in the past. 

MS. CARROLL: 

So I’m assuming we’re out of time. 

212 
 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Is there a burning question? I know I took some time, so --

MS. CARROLL: 

Yeah, one thing I will say about your burning question, Greg, 

and this is where I’m going to play super-dorky criminal law 

professor, which is not what I ordinarily play, but cross-jurisdictional 

issues are very common in criminal law, so you often have multiple 

jurisdictions in play, and I think that what we’ve heard here, right, 

make sure that people are talking to each other so that you have 

some determination of who actually has jurisdiction or who wants to 

exercise primary jurisdiction is a good way to handle it, and I think 

Chris has given us a great reason to avoid salad bars, also. 

[Laughter] 

MS. CARROLL: 

So there’s all sorts of tips now. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right now. So we have to do the photo, and we have to 

come back for the other two panels, so if we could first thank our 

panel. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

213 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there’s a lot, of course, that I think we can do informally, 

particularly to the sheriff and others, who have done this on the 

ground. We would love to get some more thoughts. 

But Sara’s going to lead us to the place that we’re taking the 

photo. We do need you to come right back up, grab some coffee or 

snacks, and then come back into the room. 

MS. BRADY: 

Yep. Break is until 3:15, so but yeah, folks can follow me. I 

have some EAC staff on the way. We’re going to go down to the 

courtyard to take a photo. Outside’s a little bit better, and then you 

can come up here, grab snacks, beverages, and we’ll be back here 

at 3:15, okay? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. 3:15. Thank you. 

*** 

[The Board recessed at 2:48 p.m. and reconvened at 3:17 p.m.] 

*** 

ELECTION AUDITS PANEL AND DISCUSSION 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. Thank you for coming back. And if we can get 

everybody’s attention, thank you for taking the picture and being so 

disciplined about that. 

214 
 

 

 

 

 

 

We are now going to move to our next panel, which is the 

election audits with the discussion led by an outgoing member of 

the Board of Advisors, Larry Norden, who is the senior director of 

the Elections and Government of democracy at the Brennan 

Center. And Larry, we want to thank you for your years of service 

on this Board and for being a champion for voting rights at the 

Brennan Center all these years, so thank you. 

[Applause] 

MR. NORDEN: 

That’s very nice, Greg. Thank you so much. And great to 

see so many of you here in person and appreciate being asked to 

come here and be with all of you. 

I’m to take a quick moderator’s prerogative. I just want to 

mention something, because this poll, the Elections and 

Government team at the Brennan Center was behind this poll. 

There’s been a lot of talk about it today. I wanted to mention 

something that doesn’t have anything to do with threats to election 

workers. There’s a lot that was covered in the poll. 

One of the more interesting things, I think, for this body is 

that we asked about awareness of federal resources among local 

election officials. There’s work to do is the big takeaway. A lot of 

election officials, particularly the newer ones, are not aware of the 

resources that are available to them. Of the resources that we 

215 
 

 

 

asked about, though, the EAC’s toolkits came out on top, clear that 

election officials want that information and that certainly the officials 

who have been around longer are aware of them. I think there’s 

work to do on the newer ones to make sure that we get that to 

them, but a real compliment to the work that the EAC has been 

doing. 

So this panel is here to talk about audits, something that, 

until recently, maybe only nerdy folks, like us on this panel, really 

spent much time thinking about, but obviously has had a lot more 

interest recently. So we’ve got, you know, a great group here that 

has a lot of experience in working on election audits, so I will make 

some quick introductions and then just allow each of the panelists 

to get in, and we can ask questions. 

So furthest to my right is Kim Smith, who is Senior Elections 

Subject Matter Expert in the EAC’s Clearinghouse division and the 

Alternative Designated Federal Officer for the EAC Standards 

Board. Prior to joining the EAC in 2021, she served as the deputy 

director for the Defiance County, Ohio Board of Elections. 

To her left is Tim Bobanic -- did I get that right? 

[Laughter] 

MR. NORDEN: 

-- who is the supervisor of elections in Brevard County, Florida, 

which is also known as Florida’s space coast. Tim has 14 years of 

216 
 

 

 

 

elections experience and has overseen 29 elections in that time. 

Brevard County implemented the Clear Ballot, automated, 

independent audit system in 2021, and it has been used to audit 

100% of all ballots and races for the last four elections. 

And last, but not least, immediately to my right is Philip B. 

Stark, Distinguished Professor of Statistics at the University of 

California Berkeley, where he has served as department chair and 

Associate Dean. In 2007, he invented the Risk-Limiting Audits, 

RLAs, many of you, I know, have heard about, endorsed by the 

National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, among 

others and now required or authorized by law in about 15 states. 

That’s amazing. In 2012, he and David Wagner introduced 

evidence-based elections and approached conducting 

demonstrably trustworthy elections. Philip has served on the EAC 

Board of Advisors since 2016. 

So as I said, I’m going to allow each of our panelists to just 

dive in, and then we’ll leave room open for questions. One thing 

that I’m hoping that one or all of you will cover is just the question of 

what do we mean when we talk about audits, why do we do them, 

and some of the challenges that we’re facing. 

MS. SMITH: 

Okay. Hi, everyone. As Larry said, my name is Kim Smith. 

I am one small part of the greater Subject Matter Expert team at the 

217 
 

 

EAC, and I just wanted to kind of highlight some of the audit 

resources that we’ve come out with really since our team was stood 

up about two years ago, so kind of to frame a relatively broad 

discussion of audits through the lens of some of our EAC 

resources. 

So first up, to highlight some of our, sort of, post-election 

audit specific resources, the first two that are listed here, the quickstart guides and the election management guidelines chapter, 

these are revisions of existing resources that we just published 

within the last year. And both of these are really meant to provide 

very introductory information on post-election audits. So for new 

election officials, as we all know, there’s a lot of new election 

officials coming in, and then also members of the public who are 

newly interested in election administration concepts, they’re really 

intended to familiarize those folks with the concept of post-election 

audits. 

And then, for that more detailed, kind of deep-dive into postelection audits, both of these refer readers to our Election Audits 

Across the U.S. report. And this is really where you’re going to get 

a lot more information about where specific kinds of audits are 

being conducted, when they’re being conducted, and gives a lot 

more detail on, you know, the methods of conducting a risk-limiting 

audit or a fixed-percentage audit, automated audits, which I think 

218 
 

 

 

you will hear a bit more about as well, and just a lot of other 

considerations as well, very practical considerations for election 

officials, things like how to project-manage the audit, transparency, 

and how to make sure that your audit is a transparent audit, as well 

as really, really helpful maps. It’s really easy to compare what is 

happening across the U.S. with the maps that are detailed in this 

report, which I think could be very important also for election 

officials, you know, as they get questions from their local voters 

about processes that are happening across the country, and it can 

really enable them to kind of speak to differences or similarities in 

their processes. 

Then I also wanted to highlight, and there’s a lot of words, 

but this is mainly to illustrate that we have a lot of resources, and 

these are the ones that I’m calling our audit-supporting resources. 

So I think we all have a sense that, to have an audit that is really 

reliable and trustworthy, it takes a lot more than just showing up on 

audit day, counting ballots, and saying, I met my risk limit or, you 

know, my hand tally matches what the tabulator said the results 

were. 

So all of these are resources that we have that really go into 

sort of election processes and security considerations that really 

bolster and support the integrity of election results and then any 

kind of audit that is being done in a jurisdiction. 

219 
 

 

 

So again, quick-start guides and election management 

guidelines, those are really introductory on each of these concepts. 

I won’t go into all of these in detail. I will spare you that, but many 

of the titles are pretty intuitive as well. And just to kind of highlight 

for a lot of election officials, especially new folks, it’s kind of hard to 

conceptualize and, you know, you are taking things day by day, and 

you have your checklist, and you’re trying to get from A to Z 

through certifying your election, so I think it’s really important to 

kind of have this idea of what all you’re doing throughout the 

election cycle and how, ultimately, it’s going to really support your 

election results and then your audit. So I think all of these 

resources really do that and can kind of make it digestible for new 

election officials. 

So all of these resources are available on our website, and 

I’m really looking forward to the discussion and getting all of your 

questions. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Good afternoon. My name’s Tim Bobanic. I’m the 

supervisor for elections for Brevard County. 

A little bit of background about my county, we are the ninthlargest county in the third-largest state in the state in the nation. 

You know, there’s nothing controversial about elections in Florida. 

[Laughter] 

220 
 

 

MR. BOBANIC: 

You know, I feel like we have really come a long way since 

the 2000 election, and I truly think we are a model state now. 

In our Brevard County, we have over 460,000 registered 

voters, and our audit procedures are mandated or dictated in 

statute, and Florida statutes 101.591 and administrative rules will 

dictate our audit procedures. 

For the longest time, when I first started in elections, the 

audits were manual audits, and it was a random selection of one 

race, and then we had to audit between 1 and 2% of the precincts 

in that race. There was many different methods to make that 

selection. In an effort to promote transparency, we, in our county, 

would assign Bingo ball numbers to each of the races on the ballot, 

and we would put them in a cage and have a member of the public 

pull that random Bingo ball out, and that would be the race that we 

would select, and then we would spend the next, you know, day or 

two going through and finding all of the ballots that we have. 

In my county, we have 171 precincts, so you know, 

especially if we’re on a two-page ballot, and if I select a race that, 

you know, is on a card A of that first ballot, you know, we will spend 

probably more time going through and finding the ballots that we 

need for the audit than actually conducting the audit. And that’s 

what was the case in 2020. We spent an inordinate amount of 

221 
 

 

 

 

time. It was our first election where we had a county-wide, twopage ballot. I don't remember the race that was picked for us. 

And then after that, we kind of transitioned to the automated, 

independent audit. So the automated, independent was authorized 

and first used officially in Florida in 2016. There was a couple 

counties who piloted the program for a number of years. My friend 

and fellow supervisor, Mark Earley, is the one who really kind of 

pioneered getting automated, independent audits and Clear Ballot 

certified for use in Florida. 

And once we did that, really, we saw a large number of 

counties jump onto the automated, independent audit after the 

2020 election cycle, when there was so much doubt over, you 

know, the result of the election. In our county, we had numerous 

calls, and you know, we complied with every single portion of the 

statute for our audit, but it didn’t count in the eyes of many, 

because we didn’t audit and count the president race. That’s the 

one that everybody wanted. 

So when we switched to the automated, independent audit in 

2021 and we implemented Clear Ballot, that allowed us -- in statute, 

the automated, independent audit requires an audit of 20% of the 

precincts in a race. However, it’s actually more efficient and a lot 

more transparent the way we do it, which is we do 100% audit of 

222 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

every single race, every single ballot, every single candidate. And 

we do that by, in essence, scanning the ballots twice. 

So there’s two certified vendors for use in Florida. We scan 

all of the ballots on our certified voting systems, and judging by 

some looks, I thought that was no possible way I would have time 

to scan the ballots twice. I was probably the biggest naysayer on 

the automated, independent audits when we first started this. 

However, it really helped actually streamline our process. 

First off, it helped us track real-time ballot inventory. So as 

we’re tabulating mail ballots on our certified voting system, our 

certified, automated, independent audit system, which the hardware 

is commercial, off-the-shelf, you know, scanners. It isn’t a blackbox machine that everybody suspects, hey, I don't know what’s 

going on behind the scenes. And it also captures a ballot image of 

every single ballot. And we regularly, after the audit’s completed, 

we will get a public records request for those ballot images, and we 

will give those ballot images out. 

The automated, independent audit, the 100% audit that we 

do, it eliminates the need for ballot sorting. You know, we don’t 

have to sort the ballots by precinct, which that was the big 

timesaver for us. So as we’re processing mail ballots, we take 

them off the tabulators. We run them through. 

223 
 

 

 

 

 

In Florida, we have three methods of voting: vote by mail, 

early voting, and election day. For early voting, we would have the 

ballots come back that night. They would be secured in our 

tabulation room, and then, first thing in the morning, we would run 

those ballots through the automated, independent audit system. 

Then, on election day, we would take all of the precinct 

ballots from election day, bring those back, and begin that process. 

And I think it took maybe two or three days, tops. In 2020, we, you 

know, had the pleasure of having a hurricane come through right 

during our audit period. You know, our Florida statute says that we 

have to have the audit complete by the seventh day after the 

election by 11:59 p.m. certification of the election, so you know, 

there’s no room for error on that. We really were able to get it all 

done. 

And you know, by having the automated, independent audit, 

our workload is predictable. We know every day, from early voting, 

how many ballots that we are going to have to audit the next day, 

and we will run them through. And what I really like about it is once 

the ballots are run through, you know, this process is not taking 

place starting after the certification of the election. We are 

authorized, in Florida, to run the ballots and kind of conduct the 

audit as the election’s happening. So when we get down to 

224 
 

 

 

 

election day and after election day, all we’re running through those 

is the election day ballots. 

And the great thing is, once they’re run through the audit 

system, they’re placed in sealed containers, and we don’t ever 

have to handle the ballots again, you know; whereas, if you’re 

doing a precinct sort and so forth, you know, you have to run the 

ballots through multiple times, and here’s the one that are in the 

audit. Here’s the ones that are not in the audit. 

In the 2022 general election, which was our largest that we 

had, we had over a half a million ballot sheets cast by voters and 

over 7.9 million ovals. That’s individual votes or ovals. And that’s a 

statistic that a lot of times people don’t realize when you hear the 

calling for hand-counting of paper ballots. 

[Laughter] 

MR. BOBANIC: 

I find it hard to believe, you know, that a hand-count of 7.9 million 

ovals -- first off, I don't think we’d have enough time to do that 

before Christmas and after an election. 

In our county, of those 7.9 million ovals, we had an accuracy 

rate of 99.992% between the two systems. It was a phenomenal 

result, and every election that we’ve conducted, we’ve had that high 

of an accuracy rating between the two systems. 

225 
 

 

 

 

It’s also great because when we’re processing mail ballots 

and we have, you know, tens or hundreds of thousands of mail 

ballots, we’re able to do a reconciliation. You know, if my opening 

teams have given me 10,000 ballots, I tabulate 10,000 ballots, but 

then I’m also running them through my automated, independent 

audit, and I should still then have 10,000 ballots. 

So it’ll tell me if I’m going to have an issue where, you know, 

a poll worker made an error and didn’t feed a ballot through 

properly on the tabulation machines, so it helps us to identify any 

issues or problems that we might have, instream, right during the 

election process, not after we’ve certified. 

I will say that, you know, Florida, we have a very engaged 

election integrity committee, a group of people, citizenship, and I 

will say that they absolutely love what Brevard does. We were the 

subject of a lot of scrutiny in 2020, and by the time 2021 and 2022 

rolled around, we were receiving letters from that same group, 

saying that we were the model county for the state and everybody 

should be working. 

I think there’s about 34 counties of the 67 that have the 

Clear Ballot system. We are waiting for a state certification to go 

through to finalize some new hardware, and it’s my understanding 

that it’s the Secretary of State’s goal to have all 67 counties 

hopefully one day on that. 

226 
 

 

 

 

 

 

So with that, I will answer any questions, or we can hold 

those until the end. 

MR. STARK: 

First, I want to apologize for wearing the mask. I’ve actually 

been hospitalized --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Mic. 

MR. STARK: 

Thank you. Sorry. I’ve been hospitalized with infections 

three times in my life and spent four-and-a-half months on IVs, so 

I’m kind of especially cautious, so forgive me. 

The other thing I’ll apologize for in advance, many of you 

have been in a room with me before. I’m often the bad smell in the 

room. I’m going to try not to be that bad a smell today, but we’ll see 

how I do. 

[Laughter] 

MR. STARK: 

So I want to start with just a brief taxonomy of election 

audits. There are a number of kinds. One kind, it helps provide 

affirmative evidence that the reported winner has really won, 

despite whatever might’ve gone wrong in election, and something 

always goes wrong in election. 

227 
 

 

Two things that are in that category that really need to be 

used together are compliance audits, which establish whether the 

paper record of the votes is trustworthy, assuming it started 

trustworthy in the first place, and then risk-limiting audits, which rely 

on that vetted paper trail to be able to confirm outcomes, check 

outcomes, and correct them if they’re wrong, in a way that the 

maximum chance that you don’t correct a wrong outcome is strictly 

limited. So the risk in a risk-limiting audit is the chance that you 

don’t correct a wrong outcome before it becomes certified and final. 

Another category of audits is root-cause analyses, and I’m 

going to talk about a root-cause analysis in a little bit of detail, 

because I think it’s a fun story. Another category of audits can find 

particular kinds of failures but can’t provide affirmative evidence 

that the reported winners really won, and most statutory audits are 

in that category, and Tim’s wonderful audit is also in that category. 

It can detect some kinds of problems in tabulation, but that’s 

different from providing affirmative evidence that the reported 

winners really won. I’m not saying it isn’t valuable, but it isn’t my, 

you know, number-one category of audit. 

And another thing that’s in that same thing is applying risklimiting audit procedures to a paper trail that hasn’t already been 

established to be trustworthy. And all the things Kim was talking 

about was the right column on one of those slides, showing all of 

228 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the things that go into ensuring and establishing whether the paper 

trail was trustworthy, because if it isn’t, tabulating it perfectly 

doesn’t necessarily give you the right winners. 

And then there’s fishing expeditions, and here, I think I’ll just 

shut my mouth there, rather than making too much noise. I’m so 

sorry. That was there. So those are the categories. 

So now, I’m going to talk about a particular audit that took 

place in New Hampshire in 2021. It was in the aftermath of the 

2020 general election, and this is the original artifact, or a photo of 

it. There was a state representative contest. It was a vote for four 

contest. The four republicans beat the four democrats, but the 

runner-up democrat was within a small number of votes of winning 

and requested a recount. 

So the original votes were tabulated electronically, and then 

the recount was a manual recount by the Secretary of State’s 

office. And what happened, if you see that row there, 297, 299, 

303, 298. The republican candidates’ vote counts all went up by 

about 300 votes. Now, it’s normal, in manual recounts, for vote 

counts to go up a little bit, because people catch voter intent better 

than machines do in edge cases, but what’s weird is that the 

democratic runner-up, St Laurent there, lost 99 votes. And that’s 

strange. It’s especially strange that four people would gain votes 

and a different person would lose votes. 

229 
 

 

 

 

 

So this was a bit of a mystery. New Hampshire had no 

provisions for audits whatsoever. The legislature actually passed 

legislation to authorize an audit of this particular contest and this 

election. And according to the terms of it, the Secretary of State 

and the State Attorney General would pick an auditor. The town in 

which this took place would pick an auditor, and those two auditors 

would pick the third auditor. So I was the third auditor. Harri Hursti 

was the one picked by the state and Mark Lindeman was the one 

picked by the town. 

So what happened here? They reserved a secure facility. 

This is in the New Hampshire Army National Guard Pembroke 

Readiness Center. This has got, you know, armed guards, barbed 

wire, et cetera, card-key access to everything, surveillance all the 

time. Cameras were set up to do 24/7 surveillance of the audit 

room and the audit materials the whole time the audit was 

underway. There were two interruptions of that, which sparked all 

kinds of conspiracy theories. There were live observers there. The 

livestream had, I think, about four cameras. 

Every single piece of paper, like every ballot was on camera 

when it was being tabulated, and the tally sheets that the auditors 

were using for the manual tabulation was also on camera. And the 

data entry of those tally sheets into the spreadsheet was done 

using Google Sheets, so the whole world could follow along. There 

230 
 

 

were separate log-ins for everybody who was doing data entry, so 

that things were attributable. You could tell who typed in what and 

so on. 

Only sworn election officials touched the ballots or the 

machines through the re-tabulation. A lot of effort was spent on 

chain of custody, inventories of things, checking seal numbers, et 

cetera, counting the individual ballots. First step was writing a 

unique identifier on each ballot and then taking a high-resolution 

scan for evidence preservation and to be able to track things 

through the entire audit process. 

The law required us to run all the ballots through all four 

tabulators that were originally used in the election, even though, in 

the election, some went through each of them separately. We 

imaged all of the memory cards. We did forensic investigation of 

the programming on the voting machines, et cetera, to make sure 

that it matched the code that was supposed to be installed on it, et 

cetera. We did forensic examination of the ballot paper, including 

microscopic examination and using a micrometer to measure its 

thickness to make sure the stock was the right stock. Used 

fiberoptic cameras to inspect the interior of the scanners, and 

everything that we did was posted to the web daily. All the artifacts 

that we generated were available to the public essentially in real 

time. 

231 
 

 

 

 

 

So this is the outcome of the 2020 hand-count, the 2021 

hand-count, and they’re basically spot-on: a difference of four 

votes. Then the machine counts on the four different machines. 

And you’ll see the machine counts really varied quite a lot. And this 

is kind of a clue that there’s something going on that maybe needs 

an explanation. 

This was a little bit of a telltale. In the original contest in 

2020. The undervote rates varied quite a bit across machines. 

And the machine number two that had a 19.3% undervote rate 

turns out was the machine that was used to process the vote-bymail ballots, the absentee ballots. 

[Laughter] 

MR. STARK: 

So there’s a clue about what might be going on. So it’s going to 

take a second to load. This is a superposition of the scans of all of 

the ballots that were cast in the contest, the front side and the back 

side. That big, red scrawl is all of these handwritten identifiers 

superposed with each other, so that’s people’s handwriting on 

10,000 ballots approximately. 

So now the interesting thing to note -- I’m going to stand up, 

I think, for a second -- is these --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

232 
 

 

 

 

Hey, Phil, use the mike over here so we make sure it’s 

captured. 

MR. STARK: 

So just see these lines. I’m trying to draw your attention to 

that. Okay. So if you look at the one on the left there, there’s a 

bunch of lines in the bottom that go through Kristi St. Laurent’s vote 

target. So the lines are where the ballots were folded. This is a 

shadow generated in the scan by where the folds in the ballots 

were, and a lot of them go through the target of this runner-up 

democratic candidate. 

So why was that? It turns out that that line is not where the 

score line is on the ballot where it’s intended to be folded. You 

know, they have a score line that weakens the paper, so they’ll fold 

naturally when you send out the absentee ballot, and it’s a little off 

from that. So why did that happen? Well, it turned out that they 

had unprecedented demand for absentee ballots, and to save time, 

they borrowed a folding machine that they normally use for sending 

out DMV renewals. 

[Laughter] 

MR. STARK: 

And the folding machine ended up folding the ballots in a 

place other than the desired crease area. So this is now a view 

under a microscope of the fold in the ballots, and it’s a little 

233 
 

 

 

 

speedbump. The one on the right is a ballot that was actually cast 

in the election. The one on the left, there were blank ballots left 

over, and we did some experiments with the machine to try to see 

whether we could get it to fold in the same way that they were 

folded when we were sent out, and we reproduced them very well. 

So it looks basically the same. 

So this let us do a numerical experiment of folding groups of 

75 ballots with different vote patterns, running them through the 

machine, and seeing whether if there was a fold through Kristi St. 

Laurent’s vote target, would that be incorrectly interpreted as a vote 

for her. 

Now, the reason that this kind of makes sense, the reason 

that we suspected this was going on is suppose someone voted 

Republican across the board, all four Republicans, and there was a 

fold through Kristi St. Laurent’s vote target and that was interpreted 

as a mark. That would generate an overvote and none of the 

Republican votes would count. 

All right. Conversely, if the ballot were not fully voted in that 

contest, and in particular Kristi’s vote target wasn’t marked, and 

there was a fold through her vote target, that would add a vote for 

her. All right. So this could account for a hand-count reducing her 

tally and increasing the four Republican tallies. 

234 
 

 

So we did the experiment and ran ballots through in different 

orientations, and this is basically the number of erroneous votes of 

overvotes that were generated by the folds through these ballots. 

It’s a very, very high number. So this was something where we had 

people who were there, public observers, did the marking of the 

ballots. Everything was counted. Everything was visible. It was 

very participatory. 

So then the question is, okay, so we’ve documented that this 

can actually happen, but does it happen often enough to generate 

that discrepancy in the votes? So here, I’ve run some imageprocessing software, based on some stuff that Harri Hursti had 

previously done, to identify -- basically wrote a voting system that 

could pick up vote marks and pick up folds in the ballots and 

categorize them according to where the folds were. So there were 

about 600 that had a -- I don't know if you can see that in the 

image, but there is a fold through Kristi St. Laurent’s vote target, 

and all four Republicans were voted for. 

You notice that the ovals are offset from each other on one 

side. The Republicans and Democrats don’t line up. The idea is so 

that you don’t think that they’re running against each other, pair by 

pair, that there’s two different slates. So that’s why the fold goes 

more often through one candidate rather than others. 

235 
 

 

So there are about 600 that kind of fit the category that 

would generate an overvote that would take votes away from the 

Republicans. There were about four that would’ve generated an 

overvote because the fold went through one of the Republican’s 

vote targets for a fully marked Democratic ballot. There were about 

260 where the contest was under-voted, and you would get a 

spurious vote for Kristi. Sorry, I know I’m out of time here. And 

then there are some small numbers in other categories. 

And some of this actually affected the gubernatorial contest 

as well, generating overvotes in the gubernatorial contest. There 

were about 230 like that. 

I did not get a very favorable response from some members 

of the audience. People made a little video, accusing me of 

treason, saying I should be behind bars, I got death threats, 

assemble the gallows, things like that, for my role as a statistician. 

[Laughter] 

MR. STARK: 

I’ll shut up now. I’ve been advancing this but not advancing 

that. 

[Laughter] 

MR. NORDEN: 

Thanks, Phil. That was fascinating. And as a reminder, and 

probably the people in this room don’t need it, but that the 

236 
 

 

 

 

 

undervote and overvote data is really often a clue if, when you have 

extreme numbers, that something’s gone wrong. It reminds me of, 

in 2010, we saw in the Bronx, looking at election results in 

New York City, and we saw in the Bronx, in one polling place, huge 

numbers of overvotes and knew that something had to have gone 

wrong with the machines or the count in some way. 

I’m curious, and I want to open it up to everybody else, but 

those were very detailed processes and transparency requirements 

for that audit. Who was responsible for developing those? 

MR. STARK: 

The three auditors, me and Harvey and Mark. We wanted 

an audit that would convince us, and we’re hard to convince, so --

MR. NORDEN: 

All right. I want to --

MS. SIMONS: 

How long did it take? 

MR. STARK: 

Oh, so receiving inventory materials took something like a 

day. Writing identifiers on the ballots was something like a day or a 

day and a half. These were all volunteer, sworn election officials 

coming from that jurisdiction and neighboring jurisdictions within 

New Hampshire to do that work. Running the ballots through all 

four tabulators, I think that was also about a day or a day and a 

237 
 

 

 

 

 

half. A lot of the experiments doing the ballot-folding and so forth, 

that was a day’s work. The forensic inspection, looking into the 

device, we found, like, lots of dust in the device. 

It turned out that the scanners were full of dust, which we 

originally thought was paper dust, but it turned out to be this 

chemical compound that’s used in the process to keep the printed 

pages from sticking together. So because of high-speed printers, 

the ink comes out wet, and you need something to keep things from 

sticking together. 

Cleaning out the machine, the dirtiest machine and then 

running the ballots back through it vastly decreased the problem. It 

didn’t completely eliminate it, but it vastly decreased it. So in all, I 

think it was about 12 days. 

MR. NORDEN: 

And that was for how many votes total? 

MR. STARK: 

Oh, it was just roughly 10,000 ballots, but you know, it 

would’ve been about the same for something larger scale, so --

MR. NORDEN: 

Do we have other questions? Eric? 

MR. FEY: 

Oh, go ahead, Jim. 

MR. DICKSON: 

238 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Phil, if I heard you right, earlier you said you had 

some questions about Clear Vote. 

MR. STARK: 

Clear Ballot? 

MALE SPEAKER: 

Jim, say it again. 

MR. DICKSON: 

If I heard you properly, Phil, you said you had some 

questions about Clear Vote. Could you briefly say what your 

questions are or --

MR. STARK: 

Sure. The concern is about image, what image audits do 

and don’t show. It’s not a concern about any particular vendor, but 

in general, scanner-based solutions have similar failure modes. 

Two different scanners can fail to pick up the same sorts of marks, 

depending on illumination, contrast settings, resolution, depth of 

color or black-and-white, and so forth. Also, unless you have done 

a thorough canvas ballot reconciliation, all of these sorts of things, 

showing that you tabulated sort of an arbitrary pile of paper 

accurately doesn’t show that you got the election outcome right. 

You need to know that it’s the right pile of paper and that nothing 

has happened to it. 

MR. NORDEN: 

239 
 

 

 

 

I would say that’s a general problem with -- that’s a general 

issue with all post-election audits, right? 

MR. STARK: 

I completely agree. That’s why the importance of a 

compliance audit before anything else, the importance of a rigorous 

canvass, and there are states that don’t do a great canvass, 

frankly. There are other states that do an amazing canvass. So 

yeah, the question is really what have you established by doing the 

image audit, and you know, it should give you some comfort about 

the tabulation phase and that, you know, if you missed a box of 

ballots the first time, you miss the same box of ballots the second 

time, unless you found -- you know. 

So there are things that it can show, but at the end of the 

day, it doesn’t prove that the reported winners really won. It just 

shows that some particular kinds of failures didn’t happen. 

MR. NORDEN: 

Eric. 

MR. FEY: 

Okay. Thanks a lot. Again, Eric Fey from St. Louis County. 

Tim, I have a question for you on the Clear Ballot system. I 

have seen it demonstrated a couple of times, and you know, in our 

case, when we have done some post-election audits, sometimes, 

for particular races, for vote-by-mail ballots, we’ll just use the 

240 
 

 

 

images, the scanned images to recount those ballots, and some of 

the observers have balked at that because it’s not the actual paper 

ballot, it’s an image of the ballot, and so I’m wondering if you’ve had 

any of that kind of pushback using the Clear Ballot system for your 

auditing. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

We have not had any pushback on that so far. Again, we’ve 

used it for four elections. A number of counties have used it. You 

know, our tabulation system also does have the ability to capture 

images, although not nearly as an efficient rate. The amount of 

storage space it takes up is extraordinary, and so therefore the 

media that is required to store those images is extraordinary as 

well. 

You know, with the Clear Ballot, you know, when we give 

those ballot images out to people and, you know, these a lot of 

these, you know, separate, independent audit people, and I agree 

with Phil. It’s not just auditing two stacks of paper. You know, you 

have to also take into account your reconciliation to your ballots 

cast, your voters checked in, which all of that’s encompassed in all 

of our procedures. We’re required, by law, to report our 

reconciliation of our voting history to our tab system as well. 

You know, I’ve heard a little bit of, you know, the image 

didn’t come from the actual system, you know, that you first 

241 
 

 

tabulated the ballot on, but not a lot. Overwhelmingly, we get a lot 

of positive response, you know. And with the Clear Ballot system, 

one of the things I really like is, you know, we can go down, and it’ll 

produce a report that shows the least confident votes. 

So it'll say, okay, in this race, show me what this system 

thinks is the least confident, and that’s where we see almost all of 

our discrepancies is we’ll see where a voter missed the oval. They 

filled outside or they circled the oval or put a checkmark or 

something like that. And you know, the tab systems are really 

designed to look in that oval position. And you know, folds on 

ballots is a hugely important process, and you know, we take great 

care when we’re folding those ballots, you know. In our system that 

we have, if we have a fold that goes over an oval, it tends to kick it 

out as an ambiguous mark. 

I recognize this system, the AccuVote. I wasn’t even aware 

that they still used AccuVote systems. 

[Laughter] 

MR. BOBANIC: 

But I’ve used those when I first started in elections. The 

system that we use now, the ES&S, the SA-50s and 200s, you 

know, any slightest, little, tiny mark will kick it out as an unclear 

mark, and then that goes to manual adjudication. So we’ve had 

great success with the ballot images. 

242 
 

 

 

 

MR. STARK: 

Just to chime in one thing here, some of the vendors’ 

scanners -- I won’t name names -- but run at 200 dpi black-andwhite. 200 dpi is kind of marginal on resolution, but black-andwhite is really not adequate, in my opinion. You need at least 

grayscale, and the reason is, for black-and-white, anything that is 

below a certain darkness is just going to show up as white in the 

image. 

And so, a light mark is erased from the -- it just never makes 

it into the scan. So it’s not an issue of the tabulation software 

setting a different threshold to say I’m going to use a different 

darkness threshold. It’s just not in there. It’s just not in the image. 

And that was a problem in Georgia. They increased the 

illumination at some point, which I think reduced the problem, but 

it’s an issue, and you know, personally, I would be pushing for at 

least grayscale images in the scans and probably higher resolution 

than 200 dpi. 

MR. BRATCHER: 

Why don’t you want to name names? Why don’t you tell us 

the name of that? You said you don’t want to name names on that 

dpi problem. Why not? 

MR. STARK: 

I just don’t want to start a fight. 

243 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Laughter] 

I just don’t want to start a fight. It -- you know, specs are out 

there. I don’t -- there may be more than one vendor. I don't want to 

pick on one. 

MS. WALKER: 

Chris Walker, Jackson County. So all hand-counts, 

everything in Oregon, recounts are all done by hand. We have to 

use the original paper ballots. That being said, we are a Clear 

Ballot user, and that is our central tally system. It’s not just an audit 

function. 

So my question is more so, so I understand you have polling 

places, but you also have absentee ballots, and we’re 100% voteby-mail. The problem I see is we have to do a huge amount of 

bipartisan teams adjudication on those ballots, because, especially 

lately, there’s a lot of different groups out there that are 

encouraging voters to vote their mark, their bubble, and then to 

scribble through everything else on the ballot. 

Oh, and people want to know why it takes weeks to certify. 

It was eight hours a day, every day, even weekends, to try to come 

to certification, because they were horrible. 

So how would you do a recount of those paper ballots when 

they have not been adjudicated because it’s a layover on the 

system. The original paper ballot remains as is for the hand-counts 

244 
 

 

 

 

and recounts, but I know that putting them through the system 

again, unless you adjudicate those, there’s no way those numbers 

are going to match because of all of the -- I mean, you know the 

system, there’s an overvote column. There’s possibly undervote so 

that you can go back through and see the least potential marks, 

you know, those marks on that. 

So how do you guys do that? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

So in Florida, the use of the Clear Ballot system was only 

authorized for post-election audits, not for recounts. In 2020, it 

was authorized for recounts, but it hasn’t been implemented yet in 

Florida. We’re still waiting for a rulemaking process on that, so I 

don't have an answer as far as how --

MS. WALKER: 

How you balance your numbers? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

I mean, we balance our numbers, and you know, again, it’s a 

post-election audit, so in Florida, as long as there’s not a greater 

difference than one half of 1%, that’s the threshold that we have to 

meet in order to be considered a successful audit. 

MS. WALKER: 

Okay. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

245 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, when we get into recounts, the state is still muddling 

through the rulemaking process on how that’s going to happen, but 

as you know, with the Clear Ballot system, you do have the ability 

to bring that up, and you can modify those adjudications. We would 

do it on a big screen, you know, in front of our --

MS. WALKER: 

Us, too. Monitors. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

-- in a public setting, in a publicly noticed meeting, where 

you can make those adjudications live, right there, in front of 

everybody. 

MS. WALKER: 

Right, because I was just wondering, because I know how 

we have to do that, and if you were using that system again to go 

through, you would see, for those numbers to match up, you would 

have to have those re-adjudicated. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Right. And what I have come to realize, you know, and part 

of my concerns with using the automated, independent audit for the 

longest time was you have to get over the hurdle that when you 

count the balance a second time, there is going to be a difference. 

You know, there is going to be a difference, because voters don’t 

mark the paper ballots the right way. They don’t follow instructions. 

246 
 

 

 

 

 

You know, it says fill in the oval. I can put a sign in every voting 

booth. I can have pictured instructions. Someone’s still going to 

draw outside the lines or give me a nice, little note, telling me how 

they feel about me on the ballot, so --

[Laughter] 

MS. WALKER: 

Or don’t follow directions. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Or don’t follow directions, exactly. So, you know, we deal 

with that, you know, in every single election, but it’s given us that 

level of confidence, you know, that no race -- and you know, we 

have small elections, small municipal elections as well in Brevard 

County, and that one half of 1% could be one or two ballots, you 

know, in a small, little city race or a special district race or 

something like that. So far, we’ve not hit that threshold, but you 

know, like with Clear Ballot is we can then pull up that race, and we 

had to look at every single oval and see, okay, here’s, like, the least 

confident. 

MR. NORDEN: 

So I’m conscious of the fact that I think we’re out of time, but 

maybe just a couple last questions. I know people have been 

waiting patiently, so Ricky and John. 

MR. HATCH: 

247 
 

 

 

 

 

I didn’t have a question, just Chair Moore stepped out to 

greet the representative who’s coming, so we can continue until 

they come in the room. 

MR. NORDEN: 

Okay. 

MR. HATCH: 

Mr. Fogarty? 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Thank you very much. John Fogarty from Chicago, Illinois. 

And I do have a question for Mr. Bobanic. And, you know, I 

think you touched on it a bit, but it occurs to me that if there was an 

election contest or a recount situation where a candidate wanted to 

initiate it or needed to initiate it, I assume there’s a statute that 

allows that in the State of Florida. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Actually, in Florida, there’s not. So in Florida, a recount is 

triggered by any race with less than one half of 1%. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Okay. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

So that’s kind of our magic number. So a recount’s triggered 

if the difference between any two candidates is one half of 1% --

MR. FOGARTY: 

248 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

-- and that does a machine recount, and the machine recount will 

then kick out the overvotes and undervotes, and if the difference is 

less than one quarter of 1%, then you do a hand-count of the overand under-ballots. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Okay. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

So that’s the statute as it’s laid out. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Okay. Got you. In Illinois, it’s a much more robust 

opportunity to contest anything and --

MR. BOBANIC: 

Yeah, and trust me, we had everybody knocking down our 

door, asking us, hey we will pay for whatever recounts and so forth 

and everything --

MR. FOGARTY: 

Yeah. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

-- and it’s just in Florida statute. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Very good. Thank you. 

249 
 

 

 

MR. HATCH: 

Mr. Palmer, did you have something else? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Yes. This is Commissioner Palmer, EAC. 

For Tim Bobanic, you mentioned in some of your comments 

sort of the accuracy when you compared the two. You know, you 

mentioned what hand recounts, and a lot of election officials are 

facing calls for hand recounts. Could you describe how you think 

this technology sort of makes that a much more accurate process 

than hand recounting? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Certainly. I will tell you that the 2020 general election -- I’ve 

had my share of recounts. You know, I survived the 2018 recounts 

in Florida. We had three statewide recounts, and our county had a 

local recount as well. We had United States Senator, we had 

Governor, and Commissioner of Agriculture. 

And the interesting thing is Florida hadn’t had a statewide 

recount since Bush versus Gore. So it had been 18 years since we 

had to overcome that. 

Yes, it was quite an ordeal. And two of the races went to a 

manual count. Two of the races were under one quarter of 1%. In 

our county, we did not have Clear Ballot at the time. Had we had 

Clear Ballot at the time, we would have gotten to the point where 

250 
 

 

the recount was called and hadn’t been authorized, and we’re still 

going through that part of the statute. We’d be able to push a 

button, produce a report, and say, you know, here’s the results from 

the automated, independent audit system and recount system, and 

here's the answer. 

It took us about a week to go through and first run all the 

ballots through to sort out the ones that we needed. Three of them, 

luckily, were statewide, so they were on every ballot, but one local 

race was not, so we isolated those, and we kind of knocked that 

smaller, municipal recount out of the way. And then we got into the 

larger ones. 

I will tell you that during a recount, especially when you’re 

kicking out the overs and unders and having to produce those on 

the screens, I think we had 15 counting stations, where teams of 

two were there to hand-count the overvotes and undervotes, and 

we had four attorneys assigned to every table behind them. We 

had a room half this size that we conducted it, so it was a 

tremendous amount. 

Now, I will say, you know, we were one of the only counties -

- at least Brevard was. We were one of the only counties whose 

original, physical ballot count matched the recount exactly. We 

were actually noted in the Palm Beach Post, and that’s one of my 

little bragging points that I love to talk about. 

251 
 

 

[Laughter] 

MR. BOBANIC: 

But having an automated, independent audit system would 

streamline that, because 90% of the work is already done. All of 

the early voting, all the mail ballots, it’s already done. All you’re 

doing is doing that election day ballots, and again, we knock those 

out in two days with four scanners. We actually have six scanners, 

but we’re waiting for the next version of the hardware certification 

from the state, so we probably could’ve gotten done even quicker 

that time, and we would’ve been able to do it and produce ballot 

images that anybody could do all their independent audits, which 

they very much like to do. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

A little, tiny question: do you have a sense of that number, 

per thousand, of whose circle or check or X that the oval machines 

cannot count but are ballots? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

It’s a very small number, but it certainly can be enough to 

make the difference in a race. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Yeah. No, so but in Minnesota, it’s between one and three. 

You know, we did three million, and in that, that’s how we picked a 

quarter of a percent, because you have to do a recount if you know 

252 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that there’s that many people whose votes were not counted that 

are citizens. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Right. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

And so for us, we say it’s zero to zero. If it were below a 

fourth of a percent, it’s a zero to zero. But do you have a way to 

monitor what that number is and keep it in your mind? I mean, it’s 

not like you have a system that could tell you what that number was 

each time, am I right? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

I would have to look at it, because every race, when I run 

that report that says here’s --

MR. RITCHIE: 

Yeah. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

-- my least-confident ovals --

MR. RITCHIE: 

Right. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

-- it could be different for every race. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

It could be different. 

253 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Yeah, so --

MR. RITCHIE: 

But did somebody study it? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

Not to my knowledge, no, but it’s certainly a worthwhile --

MR. RITCHIE: 

Yeah. Thank you. 

MR. BOBANIC: 

You're welcome. 

MR. HATCH: 

I’m sure Philip would like to study that. 

[Laughter] 

MR. HATCH: 

I have two questions, a quick one for Tim. When you scan 

the second time, do you scan that immediately after scanning the 

first time, or do you batch those up and wait and then scan all of the 

second pass all at the same time? 

MR. BOBANIC: 

So for the mail ballots, we scan those in stream, so we take 

them right off of our DSA-50s, and we put them right onto the Clear 

Ballot scanners. We run them, and we don’t actually save the 

254 
 

 

 

batch on the 850 until we see that the same number of physical 

ballots went through both sides. 

The early voting ballots, those are done out at remote 

locations. Those ballots come in. Those are run through DS-200 

tabulators, and then they come back in, in sealed containers. We 

open those, and then we run those first thing the next morning 

every day. 

And then election day, like I said, as soon as we get all those 

in, the first thing the next morning, we start running those. 

MR. HATCH: 

Great. And then, Philip, a question for you. So you spent, I 

don't know, a week and a half, several people working on an 

election with 10,000 ballots. Do you have suggestions on how that 

would scale to a jurisdiction of 500,000 ballots or a million? 

MR. STARK: 

So, I first want to point out that this was a root-cause 

analysis, not, you know, a risk-limiting audit or something like that. 

I mean, if you have more ballots, you could have more 

election officials touching the ballots and counting the ballots, and 

you know, this parallelizes, you know, to some extent. So if you 

increase the staff when you increase the workload, you could keep 

things constant. 

255 
 

 

 

 

 

The part that didn’t scale were things like -- we try to make 

sure there’s only one thing going on in the room at any given time, 

so that the live audience and the people who are watching on the 

live stream could actually pay attention to everything that was 

happening and feel that, you know, they really were observing it. 

So things would often stop. For example, if there was a machine 

jam, everything stopped. You know, all of the machines would then 

be stopped. We’d wait. We’d go through, you know, out loud, the 

process of clearing the jam, you know, reading the instruction list 

and so forth. 

So there are things that were bottlenecks that probably 

would’ve happened more frequently if we were doing more 

machines and also trying to observe the observability of the audit, 

the transparency of the audit. 

The other things that wouldn’t scale well, you know, it was 

one person with a, you know, grounding strap on his wrist and the 

right tool set and a microscope, taking apart the machines, and 

removing the memory cards and things like that, and wanting to 

make sure that only one of that was happening at a time, again for 

transparency reasons. 

So it really is going to depend a lot on how transparent and 

observable you want it to be and your staffing. 

256 
 

 

 

 

In a different direction, if we’re talking about something like a 

risk-limiting audit, where, you know, the job on audit day 

parallelizes very well. Different teams go retrieve different ballots 

for inspection by different numbers of teams of judges and so forth. 

There, I think things scale pretty favorably. There’s actually -- I’ll 

take a second -- a relatively new way of drawing the audit sample 

that makes it feasible or practical to audit very large numbers of 

contests at the same time. And one result is Orange County, 

California, which is the nation’s sixth-largest jurisdiction, they had, 

in 2020, about one-and-a-half million voters, over three million 

ballot cards, 181 contests. They could’ve audited all 181 contests 

to a risk limit of 5% by looking at roughly two thirds of 1% of the 

cards, so well under 1%. 

MR. HATCH: 

Thank you. Chair Moore is back. Let’s give the panel a 

thanks. 

[Applause] 

MR. HATCH: 

Okay. I’d like to turn the time back over to 

Commissioner Palmer. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So hold on one second. 

257 
 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, all, for being patient and getting through that 

panel, and we’re going to turn everything back over to 

Commissioner Palmer, who’s going to introduce our Ranking 

Member of the House Administration Committee. And I’m happy to 

say I’m proud to be a recently reappointed member of that 

Committee, and we thank the Congressman for being here today. 

Mr. Palmer. 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION MINORITY REMARKS 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member of the 

House Administration Committee for being here. Congressman 

Morelle represents New York’s 25th district, which includes the City 

of Rochester and the surrounding area. Prior to being sworn at the 

end of 2018, he served as Majority Leader of the New York State 

Assembly from 2013 to 2018. In addition to his role as Ranking 

Member of the Committee on House Administration, 

Congressman Morelle serves on the House Appropriations 

Committee, where he sits on the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Justice, and Science and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Development. 

258 
 

 

Thank you for being with us, and we really appreciate you 

being here, and we’d like to give you the opportunity to talk to us a 

little bit. It’s been a great day so far, and thank you for being with 

us. 

MR. MORELLE: 

Well, thank you, Don. Thank you, everyone, for inviting and 

giving me a chance to say a few words. And I apologize in 

advance. I have an appointment back up on the Hill that I have to 

go to, but I’m certainly hoping that this will be the first official part of 

a long engagement where we all work together to advance the 

interests of elections in America. So I’m really, really grateful to 

you. 

Don, thank you, and you have testified in front of the 

Committee. I’ve already had a chance to interact a little with you, 

and I certainly want to thank Chairman Moore for helping get me 

into this and bringing us together. 

I just have a few comments to make. I know you’ve got a 

busy schedule, and you’ve already been hard at work today, but I’m 

grateful to be here, and I do want to thank my friend, Tom 

Ferrarese who’s just joined the group. I think he’s the latest 

appointment, and Tom and I have a long relationship. He’s been 

so critical to the administration of a fair and wonderful election 

259 
 

 

 

 

oversight as a Board of Elections Commissioner in Monroe County, 

where I am privileged to serve. 

So I want to start by just thanking you for all the work that 

you do to bring fair elections and conducting elections in America. I 

had the privilege of meeting with several of the Commissioners, 

and our Committee heard testimony, and I have to say, it may be 

unusual, but I’m the Ranking Democrat of a Committee on which I 

haven’t had the privilege of serving on before. So usually in 

Congress, you come to Congress, and you kind of work up and 

eventually become the lead member for your party. In my case, I’m 

brand new to it, so this has really been, since just the beginning of 

January, a new opportunity for me, and I’m really, really grateful. 

So coming to Committee meetings and hearing testimony from 

people for the first time has really been very educational, obviously, 

but critically important, and to hear about what the Commission 

does, and the Board of Advisors in particular, is something that’s 

really important. 

You know, so we will work pretty hard in the Committee at 

fulfilling our critical oversight of federal election administration, and I 

have to say I’m very, very concerned about what I consider years of 

baseless, inaccurate claims of fraud and insecurity in our elections 

and what I consider real attacks on the democracy. It’s not really 

the election and the charges, which are proven false repeatedly, 

260 
 

 

 

 

 

about fraudulent elections and elections that people refuse to 

accept the results of, and I think it’s done a great deal to undermine 

confidence in American elections. 

And it’s sort of interesting to me. Some of the people that 

are screaming loudest about Americans don’t have confidence in 

election systems, to me, have been continued by those very 

people. So if you continue to say there’s fraudulent elections and 

elections having been fair, that does undermine confidence, but it’s 

hard to suggest that that’s just some organic thing, that that hasn’t 

been created by people who continue to make baseless charges. 

And for me, and I suspect certainly for all of you, this is 

fundamental. If you don’t have confidence, the American public, in 

the conduct of elections, if you continue to suggest that the 

outcome isn’t what people believe it to be and we don’t allow every 

single American to exercise the franchise, then all the other rights 

in the Constitution, in fact the Constitution itself, without that 

foundational aspect of belief that we all have in elections doesn’t 

mean anything. It’s not worth the paper that it’s written on. 

And I learn a lot of lessons from my father, and my dad, 

when I was growing up, a lot of lessons happened on a ballfield, 

which is probably a bad idea. My wife would be aghast if I used a 

sports analogy, so I won’t use one, other than to say he used to 

have this lesson that he’d teach over and over, which is when you 

261 
 

 

 

 

win, you win gracefully. You act with humility when you win, but 

when you lose, you also act with humility and recognize that some 

days, it just doesn’t work out, and you don’t complain about it. You 

follow the rules, and the next time around, you go at it. 

And I’ll admit, I’ve always felt that way about elections. 

There are a lot of elections that I’ve been in. I’ve been blessed to 

be a candidate many times, and I’ve been further blessed to win 

almost every election I’ve ever run in. But I’ve worked with a lot of 

candidates who haven’t been as successful. I served as a Majority 

leader, as Don said, of the New York State Assembly, and so there 

are elections you wish the outcome had been different. You just 

accept it, and that’s what America’s about, frankly. That’s the 

fundamental notion of our democracy is that you do that. 

So what I really do appreciate, though, is the hard and 

dedicated work of people who work at election poll places, who are 

inspectors, who are commissioners, who are people who deal with 

election law, both at the state level and at the federal level. I mean, 

this is an enormous responsibility, and our elections don’t function 

without those people. It literally cannot function without the hard 

work of citizens who typically are doing it for, you know, basically 

what would amount to no pay if you were thinking about it. I mean, 

I know in New York -- and Tom will give testament to this -- we’re 

always trying to find ways and resources to bring inspectors to the 

262 
 

 

 

 

 

 

polls, make sure that they do the real work. You know, they’re the 

heart and soul of this democracy, and so we rely on them. And 

when I see poll workers or inspectors or poll watchers being 

threatened, the notion that physical violence or insults would 

accompany their efforts to simply make sure that we conduct these 

elections in a fair way and that the most basic and fundamental part 

of democracy is people get to run for election. 

I don't know why I ran for the county legislature when I was 

24 years old, but I did. And yeah, I never worried, for a moment 

ever, that an election wouldn’t turn out the way that the Board of 

Elections said it would. So I lost my first race, not that I 

remember --

[Laughter] 

MR. MORELLE: 

-- by 68 votes out of about 8 or 9,000. I don't think Tom was 

Commissioner then or I would’ve complained to him. But, you 

know, if I had changed the minds of 34 or 35 people, my career 

would’ve started two years earlier. I won my second election by 

128 votes. I lost the first time I ran for the New York State 

Assembly. I lost by one tenth of one percentage point, and it was 

mostly because of absentee ballots, which changed the outcome of 

the election, but never, for a moment, and I mean this, as much as I 

might’ve been frustrated or disappointed or whatever it was, never, 

263 
 

 

 

 

for a moment, did I ever, ever, ever think that it wasn’t fair. I just 

accepted it. And you know what? Picked up. Dusted myself off. 

Ran again. And each time, the only two losses I’ve had in my life 

are the county and state legislature and two years later won both 

elections, and I’m blessed now to be in Congress. 

But it’s fundamental to all of us that we accept it and that we 

do everything that we can to further and protect people who are 

doing it, who are volunteering, or who are working for the smallest 

of wages, because they believe in the system. And Congress does 

have a significant role to play in these elections, certainly around 

federal elections, but the Supreme Court has held the right to vote 

to be preserved of all rights, to my point. I mean, the Constitution’s 

based on that fundamental right and the broad authority of 

Congress to legislate in this space under the elections clause of the 

Constitution. 

So we clearly understand the role of local governments and 

state legislatures, but ultimately, the Founders and the Supreme 

Court have upheld the right of Congress to be the ultimate arbiters 

here and to make sure that this is fair. So we should be working 

every single day to ensure Americans have access to the ballot 

box. It’s fundamental. 

And as they said, it’s not perfect. You know, we always use 

the phrase working towards a more perfect union, recognizing that 

264 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American democracy, from its outset, has had challenges, but we 

continue to work at it. All of you continue working. You’re 

dedicating time and energy to make sure that elections are held. 

And you know, I was here on January 6 in 2021, and frankly 

witnessed one of the great horrors of my life and was in the middle 

of it, and frankly, I think or I would hope for most Americans felt like 

it was a scene from a dystopian movie that couldn’t really be 

happening in the 21st Century. And it did, and it came, at least in 

my mind, at the time, and I don't think I’ve changed my view of this 

at all, about to perpetuation that the election had been stolen or that 

somehow there was a massive fraud but avoided any evidence that 

suggested that was true. 

So we have to continue to fight to protect the elections and 

the safety of election workers and voters. I mean, the idea that 

someone would be, in some way, hindered or in any way blocked 

from their right to the franchise, one that has been fought over for 

centuries. I come from Rochester, New York, so one of the things 

that’s built into our DNA is Frederick Douglass wrote The North Star 

newspaper from Rochester, New York, and our airport is named the 

Frederick Douglass Greater Rochester International Airport. 

The other pioneer who lived in Rochester was Susan B. 

Anthony. Her house stands not very far from where The North Star 

was printed. 

265 
 

 

So, you know, Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass, in 

Rochester, New York, are revered citizens, but they’re not 

important just to Rochester, New York or our region or upstate 

New York; they’re important to all of us, because they helped 

expand that franchise which is fundamental to our work. So 

protecting that democracy, protecting the right of elections and 

voters and poll workers and the people who do this helps make 

sure America ultimately meets its promise. 

So I think I’ll say, as my editorializing, I continue to be so 

frustrated, because I think election workers, I don't care if you’re a 

Democrat or Republican or Independent, I think people don’t come 

to this work, you don’t come to this work because you have an 

innate desire to stop people from voting or that you have any 

interest in making sure that the outcome is tipped one way or the 

other way by election workers or election officials or secretaries of 

state. I mean, people come to this work because they believe 

fundamentally in democracy, and when lies are spread or outcomes 

aren’t accepted and there’s no evidence to the contrary, I find that 

beyond frustrating. I think it fundamentally is efforts to erode the 

very democracy which we all hold so dear. 

So you know, making sure we have information, making sure 

that there’s transparency, making certain that the law is abided to, 

making sure that every American gets to exercise those rights, 

266 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

those are the most important parts of this democracy. And as I 

said, without it, I can’t imagine much else can go well in this 

country. It is foundational. It is fundamental. 

And I mention not only transparency, but it’s also about 

education around our election. Like transparency and education, in 

my mind, go hand in hand. We have to be transparent. People 

have to have confidence that the outcomes that you publish and 

that you certified are right and true, but we also have to educate 

people about their rights, their obligations. You know, wouldn’t it be 

great in America if 100% of people who are eligible to vote voted? I 

don't know about all of you. I’m sure you feel the same way I do. I 

can’t imagine not participating in an election. 

I mean, my mother used to say when I was in second or third 

grade, the teacher would say, who would like to, and I would raise 

my hand. She said, you wouldn’t even know what they were asking 

you to do and you were ready to participate. 

[Laughter] 

MR. MORELLE: 

It’s kind of how I feel about voting. I can’t imagine my neighbors 

voting and me not participating. 

So I know that happens, and people in my position and 

people in our world are always trying to encourage people, please 

vote. Please. Even if you don’t vote for me, please vote. It’s so 

267 
 

 

 

 

fundamental. And I think sometimes people find it maybe 

mysterious or mystique, and it’s our job, collectively, to make sure 

that they’re educated and that, again, we protect the system to 

make sure it works. 

So being able to cast a ballot freely, being able to be a 

person that participates in the administration of that election freely, 

without any concern for their public or their personal safety without 

fear are things that we need to do, and we need to heed the call of 

state and local officials. And this is the last point I’ll make, and then 

I’ll get out of your way and let you do real work. Making sure that 

we provide resources to the states and localities to do their job is 

fundamental. 

You know, there’s a saying about, you know, budgets at any 

level of government that budgets are sets of priorities. You know 

what you prioritize by the amount of investment you’re prepared to 

make. So if elections in my view and in your view, if they really are 

foundational, fundamental to American democracy, then the way to 

know that is how much we invest dollars in all of the systems 

necessary to protect people. 

So I’m going to continue to be a huge advocate, not only as 

the Ranking Member on the House Administration Committee, 

which has the responsibility for the authorization of this, but I’m 

going to be a strong advocate on the Appropriations Committee, 

268 
 

 

where I happen to have the privilege of serving, to make sure that 

localities, that states have resources and partnership with the 

federal government to make sure that whatever criticisms are, let’s 

put them on the table. Let’s make this transparent. Let’s make this 

work for the American public, and let’s make sure that you have the 

resources to be able to train workers to be able to educate the 

public, to be able to attract poll watchers and people who are 

inspectors, et cetera. 

And I know we use different terms at different places, so I’m 

getting caught up with the different terms we use outside of 

New York, but it’s really important. And recently, Vice-Chair 

Hovland and Commissioner Palmer talked about educational tools 

that the EAC has developed for election officials to utilize, new 

programs the EAC is working on, such as the Field Services 

Program, the regular engagement of the Commission with state 

and local officials and other federal partners. 

So, I want to make sure that we do everything we can, and 

my counterpart, I’m sure, Chairman Steil, will express the same 

commitment to this, I hope, this morning, and we're working in 

partnership, where we can. Some things we’ll disagree on, but I 

hope we all agree that a need to invest resources in this and that 

you support your work is vitally important, and you do have a critical 

role to play in how we do this and make sure that we are 

269 
 

 

 

 

developing educational tools and guidance, and my hope that 

Congress will continue to support and bulge through those efforts 

and certainly not undercut or do anything that would impair your 

mission. 

So the Committee’s been keeping a steady pace of electionrelated hearings, probably more than I expected we would do, but 

that’s good, examining the midterm elections, examining election 

observer access, and I think another hearing later this week on 

state tools to promote voter confidence. So I think and would 

expect colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue this work, 

and I’m certainly going to be a full participant in the effort. And I will 

tell you, the House Democrats will continue putting forward what we 

consider to be critical pro-democracy policies: the Freedom to Vote 

Act; the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 

And you know, we did persevere and get through 2022 I 

think, generally, but more progress is needed to protect our 

institutions. And honestly, I do find it’s a little hard for me to believe 

at times that here we are, in the first quarter of the 21st Century, 

and still sort of fighting about how people get to vote and whether 

we’re going to invest in voting because it’s so critical, and it's the 

better arc of 250 years of American democracy. 

So I’m going to continue to persevere. I’d love to be a 

partner with you and to continue to support your efforts and 

270 
 

 

continue to make sure that there’s transparency and education, that 

poll workers are protected, that voters are protected, everyone gets 

the right to exercise their franchise, because it’s so critical to do. 

And Mr. Chairman and all the members of this body, I pledge 

to you my continued support for your work and look forward to 

being a partner with you in the months and years to come. And 

thanks for giving me the opportunity to come and spend some time 

with you and tell you how much I appreciate your work. 

[Applause] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you, Congressman Morelle. We really appreciate the 

support, the EAC and the Board of Advisors. Thank you. 

MR. MORELLE: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I also want to point out -- thank you, again, Congressman, 

for coming. Members of his staff are behind here. They’ve been 

with us most of the day, so if you do have additional questions, both 

Sean and Sara are both here. Wave your hand again so we can 

see you. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Sean and Sara, I’m blind. If, after we break, if I could speak 

to you briefly, if you could find me, I’d appreciate it. 

271 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So thank you all for being patient. As the Congressman 

walks out, we want to just update the schedule. We only have two 

items left on our agenda today. That is the final panel on public 

records requests that’s going to be moderated by Mark Ritchie, and 

then we’re going to finish this side of the table, which we’re not 

going to leave you all out, so get ready to put your thinking caps on 

of what you hope to see come out of this meeting and give us a 

little bit more of your background. And then we’re going to close 

the day, so we should be able to finish right about 5:00, so we’re 

running a little bit late, but we should be able to do all of this in the 

next 30, 35 minutes. 

So Mark is already making his way up, and there are two 

other members. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

We’re going to be done by 5:00. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. 

[Laughter] 

MR. RITCHIE: 

The whole thing. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. Good deal. 

272 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS PANEL AND DISCUSSION 

MR. RITCHIE: 

This panel, I’ve had a preview. They’re going to jack you up 

with how solution-oriented they are to something that I also 

experienced when I was Secretary of State, so I’m damn excited 

about this, and I want to just kind of jump in. Are you ready? 

Howard got himself a jacket. I don't know where this came 

from. 

[Laughter] 

MR. RITCHIE: 

I’ve got a question about this, but you’re ready to go? 

MR. KNAPP: 

I’m standing between us and the bar, so --

MR. RITCHIE: 

Correct. So, you know Howard is the chief election officer in 

South Carolina, lawyer, and active, active, active in his community 

and in life, and he gave us stories of how they worked to be 

prepared for that flood of requests for public documents that most 

of us shall nod your heads about like we’ve had this. So we’re 

going to start with that store first. 

MR. KNAPP: 

Oh, okay. Sure. Well, I know I’ll just start off and say that 

public records requests in South Carolina, they’re called FOIA, 

273 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom of Information Act, so when I say FOIA, that’s what I’m 

talking about. This is not the sexiest topic in the world. I’m aware 

of that, but it is kind of the centerpiece of what we’re going through 

in the elections sector. 

I understand that distrust of government is out there. I don't 

think there’s anybody here who can honestly say the government is 

batting 1,000 in the honesty department and has been for a while. 

You know, and I think as a citizen and a taxpayer, I think FOIA is 

vital to keeping our government accountable, keeping people like 

me accountable, and just understanding the people’s business. 

But what we started to see in South Carolina is kind of a 

weaponization and abuse of FOIA, which I know are strong terms. 

Some interest groups outside of our state have very small but loyal 

followings with our state. The national group will tell the local 

followers you need to FOIA this or that. Keep in mind, these 

national groups are telling their locals to ask for the same thing in 

different states. They’ll all use different systems that have different 

laws, so we’ll get -- and I’ll talk to my counterparts in other states. 

We’ll get the same request that Maryland gets or Texas gets or 

California gets, and it’s not applicable to us at all. 

And we respond to every single FOIA request, and so we’ll 

go back to the requester and say, you know, we’ll just need some 

kind of clarification, and they will have no idea what we’re talking 

274 
 

 

about, which tell us that they did not know what they were talking 

about to begin with. 

And on top of that, I have had some of these local activists in 

my state tell me, to my face, that they use FOIA to slow down the 

election process and to make, quote, election officials’ lives hell, to 

the point that they quit. That’s why we’ve had in South Carolina 

over half of our county election directors quit. My agency has seen 

over 70% turnover since 2020. So I’m not saying it’s all due to 

FOIA, but you know, when I have a staffer here, 10% of his duty is 

supposed to be FOIA and 90% is elections, and right now, that’s 

inverted. 

So I think that FOIA is vital, extremely important to being a 

citizen, knowing what’s going on and keeping your government 

accountable, but finding that medium, I’m not sure how to do that, 

but we’re trying to in South Carolina. 

I can go on, but I’m going to let you all talk. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Our second speaker, Shane Schoeller, is the County Clerk in 

Greene County, a former member of the Missouri state legislature, 

Speaker Pro Tem and Speaker in the Missouri legislature. He also 

worked for somebody who’s a real hero for me, Roy Blunt, who was 

a county election official and then went on to be a leader in all kinds 

of things, in everything from public broadcasting, which I work in, to 

275 
 

 

 

 

many things else, and so I’m jealous that he had the chance to 

work with him, but I had a chance to honor Roy at a big event here 

recently, and so I’m thrilled to have you here. 

What they’ve done in Missouri to get in front of and be in a 

kind of proactive mood is very inspiring, and I’m just thrilled that 

you’d be here today to share that, because I know you’ve got some 

campaigning to do out there. 

[Laughter] 

MR. RITCHIE: 

We’re glad to have you here today. 

MR. SCHOELLER: 

Well, I’m honored to be here, especially as a member of the 

Board since 2015. And I was, you know, thinking about, you know, 

I was actually elected in 2015 and Senator Blunt then appointed me 

to this Committee at the time. And transparency’s always been 

critically important to me, but boy, you really see it when you 

become a county clerk just how important that role is. 

I can remember one of the first e-mails I received as county 

clerk was from one of the members of our local media, and he had 

sent a request, like, literally the first day I was there, wanted to 

know what the public records from our county were concerning 

insurance claims against our county and settled, citizen claims and 

lawsuit settlements from the year prior. Well, of course, I had only 

276 
 

 

 

 

 

 

been on the job for one day, so I had to call our county counsel to 

make sure we could respond to that request adequately. 

And really, during the first couple years that I was in office, 

we did not have a large number of Sunshine Requests during that 

period of time. That changed in 2016, 2017, and one of the ways it 

changed was our state auditor at the time, she had been appointed. 

She sent out a request to local governments all across the state. It 

was counties. It was cities. It was schools, fire protection districts, 

and she happened to send it during the week of the August 2016 

statewide primary, so my chief deputy who had worked for the 

office for countless years. As a matter of fact, she worked when 

Senator Blunt was county clerk there. She got the request and 

inadvertently, during the busyness of that week, put that request in 

the folder where the information was and filed that away. 

So we get through the November 2016 election. I’m feeling 

good. On Thursday, I get a phone call from the media, why did you 

not respond to the Sunshine Request? I’m like, what are you 

talking about? I wasn’t aware of it. And so that commenced us 

going through, looking to see if we could find the request, and we 

ultimately did find the request. And we found it in the folder where 

she had went to respond to the request the first time. 

And so, I set about at that time to make a number of 

changes, first of all, if we get them in by mail, we would scan it in. 

277 
 

 

 

 

We made changes in terms of making sure we were on a timeline, 

because we’re always good to respond to it in three days, but we 

wanted to make sure we had a clock to make sure we did that 

adequately. 

And one of the things that really troubled me was a reach out 

to our state auditor a number of times to say do you have best 

practices standards, because it was my belief that most local 

governments were not not trying to respond. Either they didn’t 

understand the Sunshine Law or they had hired people who were 

not familiar with the Sunshine Law. And you think about some of 

the smaller jurisdictions, like the fire-protection districts, smaller 

schools. People get hired. They have no training in terms of the 

Sunshine Law. 

And so, what I did the following year was I put on a 

regional/state conference, where we taught for an entire day. 

Here’s the Sunshine Law. Here’s how you respond to it. We 

invited members of the media. We had a number of people come 

and learn best practices, because I felt like that is the best way to 

help people become informed in terms of being transparent and 

being accountable. And that was well-received at the time. 

And so then, later on that year, in 2017, we had an election 

official in the county government that a whistleblower that worked 

for them had reported to, ironically, our state auditor at the time, 

278 
 

 

 

 

 

some actions that they felt like needed to be investigated. And so 

during the end of 2017 and almost all the way through the year 

2018, I received countless Sunshine Requests from the local 

media. And I'm talking about spending countless hours where I 

was in there nights, weekends, going through, because one of the 

things in our state, you cannot charge for the time that you go 

through looking for closed versus open records. The court had 

determined in a decision that that should’ve been done before. 

Now you can imagine with e-mails, how are you going to do that, 

right? 

And so now, they’ll do e-mail requests where they’ll give you 

a keyword search request. You have to go through all those emails to see if the response is. Then you have to determine 

whether or not they have any closed records. And what’s ironic is 

this local election official, a friend of mine, however, he was very 

upset that I was not charging enough for the request. And long 

story short, he Sunshine’d me for every Sunshine Request that I 

had gotten --

[Laughter] 

MR. SCHOELLER: 

-- because he wanted to see if I had charged accordingly to what 

he thought that I should charge. So that was kind of -- and I was a 

279 
 

 

 

 

little frustrated, because at that time, we were actually conducting 

the November general election for 2018. 

And so long story short, though, didn’t have a whole lot 

happen over that period of time. And then last year, I was 

unexpectedly honored to received from the Missouri Sunshine 

Coalition the Sunshine Hero Award for the state, and there were 

two other individuals that were recognized for it: one a state media 

outlet, and another a private citizen. So that completely caught me 

off guard, and I just said, you know, that was the hard work of our 

office, because one of the things that happened during that period 

of years is we actually had to hire someone that part of their duties 

was just doing Sunshine Requests, because once 2017 happened 

in terms of that election official, a lot more people started examining 

what we were doing, and that’s fine. I have no problem with it, but I 

could not spend every day doing Sunshine Law Requests, because 

that became a challenge in itself. 

And what’s ironic is last year, when I received that request, 

one of the challenges that had been presented to me and actually 

our election officials across the state, county clerks and election 

boards, is we had been Sunshine’d about the cast-vote record. 

And I remember in the fall of ’21, the first time that I received a 

phone call about that, I was unfamiliar in terms of whether or not 

that was a public record, so we sought our counsel. Other entities 

280 
 

 

 

sought their counsel as well. It was determined that is a closed 

record for 22 months, per the federal law and state law, that those 

records are closed. 

Well then last year, September early, was when those 

records become open, and I was president of our statewide 

association then. I had encouraged everyone not to destroy their 

records from 2020, because I said we have nothing to hide. Let’s 

just be open. Let’s be transparent. 

But then, it was made known to me that part of the challenge 

with the cast-vote record is that it prints in the order of how people 

cast their ballot at their local polling location. And for those that are 

not familiar, the current generation of software and some future 

generations, it creates a record of every ballot that’s cast into the 

tabulation equipment. And so from that, you can get that printed, 

and you can go through. My understanding it was created to see if 

there was an issue with the tabulation or the software, someone 

who is, you know, a programmer of software, the individual can 

look through that and potentially find the anomalies where the issue 

is. 

Well, the challenge is if it prints out in the order of how the 

voters voted, some people, for example, tweeted out, I was voter 

#14 in my polling location. Well, you can locate that cast-vote 

281 
 

 

 

 

 

 

record and figure out how that person voted. Or if you know how 

the first two or three voters voted, you know. 

So our statute allows us, our Sunshine Law, Chapter 16, 

allows us to go before a court of local jurisdiction to be able to get 

an opinion in terms of whether or not we can provide that record as 

is. And so that created a real challenge in terms of -- I even let the 

folks know when I got the director of the Sunshine Coalition Press 

Association. I said, by the way, I want to let you know we’ve got 

this challenge here and that I’ve got a record that is competing with 

transparency of the terms of the secrecy of the ballot. 

And so, as you can imagine, it has invited some criticism 

from some folks, because they believe we don’t want to provide it, 

but I believe, as an election official, especially an administrator, I’m 

accountable to the law, and it’s not up to my discretion to determine 

what the law is if the law is not clear. So there’s only two paths I 

can go to: either the legislature, which is a four-member. I would 

prefer the legislature to make that clear, but that was not an option 

available at the time, so we went to our local court of jurisdiction. 

I’ve put that matter before them, because either way, I would’ve 

benefited either to not respond or to have responded. 

Either way would’ve been better than to go before a court in 

terms of some of the scrutiny we receive by people who were very 

frustrated that we have not provided this record. But I sleep 

282 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

peacefully at night, because I know we’re doing the right thing and 

that we always want to protect the secrecy of the ballot. As I tell 

folks for years, I want everything about an election to be known 

except how you vote. We want everything else to be open and 

transparent but keep the confidence of your ballot. 

So that is an unusual situation that we’re dealing with. We’re 

open to the court allowing us to print that CVR record in order 

different than how the voters voted. If they allow us to do that, we 

would do that, but I can’t make that decision for them myself, so it’s 

an interesting time to be in the world of elections, because I think 

sometimes people assume the worst first. I tell people don’t 

assume the worst first when it comes to your local election officials. 

Learn more before you make that decision, and so that’s part of, I 

think, the reason why I was asked to be part of this panel is 

because of the case we have before the local court. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Thank you so much. So in limited time, here’s what I want to 

do. I want to see hands of questions, and then I want to call on you 

to get these questions in one bundle, and then I want to turn it over 

to our two experts, and then I want to get out of the way of the 

intros. 

So questions? You stood up. I’m calling on you. 

[Laughter] 

283 
 

 

 

MS. KAGAN: 

All right. If no one’s going to ask. So I have passed a bunch 

of transparency bills, but I think abuse of FOIA requests are 

ridiculous and dangerous and expensive. Are any of you aware of 

template legislation that has either been proposed or enacted that 

you think is a reasonable balance between transparency and 

reasonableness? And you know, that’s probably not a legal 

definition. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Great question. More questions, anybody? Yes? 

MR. STARK: 

I’m not an attorney. I’m trying to understand whether, like, 

the production of records requires the production of records in the 

same order in which they were created? Because you know, kind 

of shuffling the cast-vote records is an easy thing to do and 

removing timestamps and things that would otherwise identify, so 

I’m just kind of -- it’s a legal question, maybe not for you. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Another great question. Any more questions? You take that 

one. You take the first one. 

MR. KNAPP: 

Oh, fantastic. In terms of model legislation, there is none in 

South Carolina. I can say that when it comes to FOIA in South 

284 
 

Carolina, we put those questions before a court, and that is just the 

cleanest way to do it. Two of us in this room are involved in the 

same FOIA lawsuit. 

[Laughter] 

MR. KNAPP: 

An activist group in South Carolina sued myself, my agency, 

and eight counties over cast-vote records, which you can and will 

be speaking about Mark, and for the same reasons, we’ve said no. 

What I have found has been helpful for me is when issues like this 

come up, I let all the stakeholders know: the Governor, the 

Attorney General, the Majority and Minority leaders of the House 

and Senate. I make sure I have as many fingers in the pie as 

possible so that everybody knows this is the issue, all their 

questions are answered, because they’re going to get the same 

questions, and if somebody doesn’t like my answer, they’re going to 

call the AG, or they’re going to call the Governor’s office and to 

have them armed before the stuff hits the fan, I think they 

appreciate. 

So having everybody on the same page is helpful. And I do 

want to say, as a plug for my agency, when FOIA became an issue, 

my agency started -- I mean, we’ve always been as transparent as 

possible, but I kind of took it up a notch. So my agency publishes 

an annual report of everything we’ve done the entire year, and this 

285 
 

 

is something that’s readily available on our website, in a pdf form, 

and it also has voter registration statistics: who we removed, who 

we added, what were the demographic of those, et cetera. And 

then this is kind of the South Carolina elections A to Z in a very 

understandable way. A lot of our FOIA -- I shouldn’t say a lot of our 

FOIA requests, but some of our FOIA requests were just trying to 

understand the system, the voting system, the voter registration 

system, how we do audits in South Carolina, which we do a lot of 

auditing, and it’s all in here. And it’s written in such a way anybody 

could understand it. 

So in terms of model legislation with FOIA, I can tell you, I 

think I can say resoundingly that South Carolina is not interested in 

adjusting our FOIA statutes, but when there’s issues, we just put it 

before a court. And then I get attorney general opinions. And I 

should’ve said that, I guess. In this lawsuit that we’re engaged in, 

prior to the lawsuit being filed, I got an opinion from my attorney 

general about cast-vote records, and he agreed with me that they 

are not subject to FOIA. Now, a court could say otherwise, but 

having the attorney general on your side helps, so --

I appreciate the question, because I think Chris mentioned 

earlier when she was up here, and I share this with more folks more 

often. I swore an oath when I took office to uphold our federal 

Constitution, or U.S. Constitution, and our state Constitution. What 

286 
 

 

 

 

 

you simply propose is I would be altering a record. That record, I 

do not have the authority to alter a record independent, and if I 

begin to do that, here’s what I see, because I’ve seen election 

officials do this. Well, this is in the best interest of the public. 

Well, what does that decision look like ten years later, five 

years later when you take that decision and then you make another 

decision and you’ve never allowed the court of law or the legislature 

to address that? Because oftentimes, we know that statutes are 

written. I’m a former member of legislature. I know this well. 

They’re not always clear, right? And that’s when that conflict 

happens you have to wait and either let the court or the legislature 

clarify that, but it is not up to me to decide that, and I feel very 

strongly about that, because too often too many election officials 

take the law into their own hands for their own convenience, and 

I’m not going to participate in that. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Let me ask all of you to thank our patriots here. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Mark, thank you for keeping that moving. Thanks to the two 

panelists as well. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

287 
 

 

 

 

 

 

People came to me, during my recounts, and said to me in 

my face, I’m going to FOIA you until you’re broken, so I feel 

personal about these two gentlemen giving us some solutions to 

this problem. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. Thank you for your time on this, Secretary. 

So now, in keeping with Commissioner Palmer’s request for 

us to all introduce ourselves and say a few words about what we 

anticipate, I’m going to ask us to finish that, and that’ll be our final. 

We’re going to end with the great Jim Dickson here, because he 

was the -- I think I started, so we’re going to end with Jim. But 

Linda, I think you’re next on the panel, and then we’ll do some 

housekeeping at the end. But Linda? 

MS. LAMONE: 

Hi, I’m Linda Lamone. I’m currently the Administrator of 

Elections for the State of Maryland. I was appointed by the 

governor in 1997, and I’m retiring in September. Thank you very 

much. 

[Laughter] 

[Applause] 

MR. CRAMER: 

Isaac Cramer, I’m the Executive Director of the Charleston 

County Board of Elections in South Carolina. I’m here as an 

288 
 

 

 

 

 

 

appointee of NACo, and I’ve been on it for 30 days, so anyone got 

me beat? Newest appointee? 30 days? Who? 

MALE SPEAKER: 

Tom. 

MALE SPEAKER: 

Me? It’s less than 30. Ricky, what is that? I think it’s like 

three weeks. 

MR. CRAMER: 

What’s the official? I want to win this one. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

You win. We’ll just say. 

MR. CRAMER: 

All right. It doesn’t matter. 

MALE SPEAKER: 

They barely made private plans for me. I think they had to 

jump off on everybody. Literally the last week and a half. 

MR. CRAMER: 

You got me beat. A fellow New Yorker, too. Kind of echoing 

what Ricky said this morning, I definitely value the room I’m in and 

the people that I’m surrounded from all across the country. It’s an 

honor to be at the table and to be able to make this country better 

in election administration and the support that the EAC has for 

election administrators cannot be overstated. 

289 
 

 

 

 

And I think one of the challenges we face is the 

communication from the EAC to the local small guys, me, the 

counties, and I want to help be a megaphone for you all in the 

county administration world, because right now, we have so much 

we deal with on a day-to-day basis. I’m one of 46 counties. I’m 

one of the bigger counties, so I have a large staff. Other counties 

in my state have one or two people in their offices, and they don’t 

have the resources to even go through the EAC’s website and go 

through all the different tools and handbooks and all the resources, 

so really, I want to help communicate that back to my counterparts 

but also to other local jurisdictions across the country that face the 

same challenges we all do. 

So just thankful to be on this Board and I definitely look 

forward to working with each one of you. 

MR. FOGARTY: 

So I’m John Fogarty still, from this morning. 

[Laughter] 

MR. FOGARTY: 

Yeah, I just changed spots. 

[Laughter] 

MR. FOGARTY: 

So it’s nice to see everyone again. 

[Laughter] 

290 
 

 

 

MR. HEBERLE: 

Hello, everyone. My name is Rob Heberle. I am a career 

prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, and for almost a year now, I have served as the director of 

the Election Crimes Branch in the Public Integrity Section, so this is 

my very first EAC meeting. Very honored to be here with you all, 

and looking forward to working with you. 

MS. CARROLL: 

So, hello. My name is Jenny Carroll. I am a professor at the 

University of Alabama School of Law. Before becoming a 

professor, I was a public defender, so I had the privilege of 

representing people who were accused of offenses. 

I came to election work a little bit through the back door. In 

2016, I was appointed to be the chair of the State Advisory 

Committee for Alabama for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

As part of that, they asked me if I would work with my Committee to 

do a report on barriers to elections following the Shelby County 

Decision. Alabama had rolled in several new election requirements 

and administrative rules. 

After the Supreme Court’s Decision in Shelby County, I 

figured, how hard can it be? I’m a lawyer. 

[Laughter] 

MS. CARROLL: 

291 
 

 

 

Two years later, we finally produced the report. It’s about 

600 pages. It’s available on the U.S. Commission’s website. One 

of the big things we did was, after taking testimony from election 

officials, we actually went into communities in Alabama and tried to 

figure out what was going on, on the ground. So the view from the 

ground is really important to me. 

One of the big takeaways from the report, and this is 

something that we’ve heard a little bit about today, but I want to reemphasize, there’s a lot of talk about the importance of election 

integrity in Alabama and claims that regulations that had been put 

in place were designed to increase trust around elections, and 

there are also claims that it did not affect voter turnout. 

And when we talked to people in the field, we found the 

opposite. We found that people had a lot of confusion about what 

requirements were in place that would allow them to vote. There 

was a lot of skepticism and fear about what would happen if they 

voted outside of compliance with these regulations. When we went 

to state officials and asked for data about the number of 

accusations of fraud that had occurred prior to the passage of these 

regulations, we learned from the Secretary of State’s office that 

there actually had been zero accusations of fraud in Alabama, 

suggesting that concerns about integrity perhaps were misstated, 

which is not to say I’m in favor of elections that are not fair and 

292 
 

 

 

 

carry integrity, but it is to say that a lot of these regulations have 

huge impacts on who turn out to vote, especially among 

marginalized populations. 

I’ve continued to work in the election field primarily among 

underrepresented populations, including incarcerated people and 

formerly incarcerated people. The notion of civic death that occurs 

in the United States when one loses the right to vote as the result of 

a conviction, or even if you remain emancipated but remain 

incarcerated, you often de facto lose your right to vote, so pre-trial 

detainees in the United States often lose the right to vote, even 

though they are still entitled to vote. 

We did one study where we found, in most states, it takes 

approximately seven back-and-forth correspondence before an 

individual can actually cast a ballot if you’re an incarcerated person. 

It’s very, very difficult to have access to the ballot if you’ve been 

arrested, again, regardless of whether or not you’ve been 

convicted. 

The argument we’ve always made to state legislators is that 

is undermining decisions that some incarcerated people ought to 

remain enfranchised, and of course, you know, again, I think there 

is a big debate in the country going on right now as to whether or 

not one ought to have a civic death just because you’ve been 

convicted. 

293 
 

 

 

 

 

The last thing I will say is when I wrote that report, I took a 

rather radical position, apparently, that the voting is a right and not 

a privilege. That was something that a lot of people pushed back 

on in that report. That surprised me. We’ve heard a lot of talk 

about voting being a right. I think it’s important we protect that 

right, and if the government is going to impede that right, there 

ought to be an explanation as to why that impediment is necessary. 

So that’s me. 

MR. INGRAM: 

I’m Keith Ingram. I’m from Texas Secretary of State’s office. 

I’ve been on the board for a couple of years now, and my hope for 

this body is that we will be able to work productively, cooperatively, 

transparently, and hopefully even synergistically with the EAC, as 

we go into the presidential election year, to inform the public and 

make sure that everyone at least has the opportunity to have 

correct information, whether they choose to access it or not. 

MR. BRATCHER: 

Kevin Bratcher, I’m the R that was appointed by NCSL to 

Senator Kagan’s D, and we balance out, I think, good. I’m the 

House in Kentucky. I’m a state representative. I’m the House 

Chairman of Elections and Constitutional Amendments. And you 

know, we took a supermajority. You’ve probably heard that word 

294 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

down in the southern states, and as soon as we basically cleaned 

up what I considered a lot of questions on elections. 

All of a sudden now that we’re the supermajority, we’ve got a 

whole new bunch. And I consider myself pretty well a conservative 

Republican, but I’m not nearly as far right as some of the things 

we’re getting now. All of a sudden, I was looking around for a guy 

named Eric. 

[Laughter] 

MR. BRATCHER: 

And --

MALE SPEAKER: 

He was here earlier. 

[Laughter] 

MR. BRATCHER: 

I was surprised at how many people actually really want 

every single ballot counted in a million-vote race. So I’m glad to be 

here, and I can see all of you guys in your states have basically a 

lot of the same issues we have in Kentucky. Thank you. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Hello. My name is Hannah Ibanez. I am with the 

United States Access Board. I was appointed by President Biden 

last year, and I’ve been with the EAC only a couple of months. In 

my regular life, I’m an attorney. I was a public defender in the 

295 
 

 

 

misdemeanor and felony divisions in Florida. And I am senior trial 

attorney at Inner City Law Center in Los Angeles. We are based 

out of Skid Row, with a primary focus on connecting folks with 

housing, services, benefits, reconnecting Vets with the VA, and 

protecting tenants from evictions. We are the pilot program for 

Housing Defenders, if you will. 

I am concerned with accessibility. I am here very, very 

gratefully. I’m excited to learn and meet all of you, and thank you 

for having me. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Jim Dickson? 

MR. DICKSON: 

I’m Jim Dickson. I have two disabilities: I’m blind and I’m 

blunt. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

I’m an organizer. I’ve been working in voting full-time since 

1982. I was -- I’m appointed to this Board by the Senate Rules 

Committee, and I have served on the Board since its inception. I 

was the second chair. 

I want to just tell two stories that happened to me that drive 

my concern about accessibility. 

296 
 

 

 

The very first time I voted, I had to vote with the aid of an 

election official, who, when I told her whom I wanted to vote for 

president, she said loud enough for everybody in the polling place 

to hear, you want to vote for who? 

Thirty years later, my wife and I became the first couple to 

differ on politics. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

And when I told her whom I wanted to vote for, she said -- I 

will always remember this -- Jim, I know you love me. Now I know 

you trust me, because you think I’m marking this ballot for that idiot. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

I want to thank the EAC and the Board, because there has 

been huge progress in making voting and the secret ballot 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Beyond that, I want to thank all of you who are election 

officials and the election officials and volunteers around the 

country, because you are the guardian angels of our great country, 

and you deserve much praise and much thanks for all the crap you 

put up with. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

297 
 

 

 

 

Are you done? 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I don't want to interrupt. That’s a hell of a way to end the 

meeting. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Let me first, though, housekeeping, we’re going to end 

tonight. Sara has offered to do something that’s going to help us 

out tonight to get through our evening. 

MS. BRADY: 

So the EAC staff, downstairs in the courtyard area, where 

folks took photos, if anyone wanted to, like, meetup with people 

afterwards, they’re holding just a couple of, like, tables and chairs 

down there, in case anyone wanted to be able to talk after meeting 

here. 

MR. HICKS: 

Cash bar. It’s a cash bar. It’s not an open bar. 

MS. BRADY: 

It’s a cash -- yeah. 

[Laughter] 

MS. BRADY: 

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. 

298 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. DICKSON: 

Budget priorities. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes. By the way, Tom’s room is 1115 --

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- if you want to put it on the tab. 

MS. BRADY: 

And then, if I can also just remind folks that, so tomorrow 

morning, breakfast will be available from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. in the 

same room, the Dunbarton Room just across the way here, and 

then I’ll hand it back to you to talk about our meeting reconvenes. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes, the meeting reconvenes at 8:30. We have two, big 

presentations. The EAC Clearinghouse resource presentation. 

And then we’re going to do two panels, one on HAVA at 20 years, 

and then we’re going to do NVRA at 30 years, and I think we might 

do ‘Doug’ Palmer at 50 years. I don't know. We’ll see. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

That’s actually his joke. But at this point, all I have left to do 

is urge you to come. Thank you for staying today and being a part 

of this. Thank you for your patience while we got through the rest 

299 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the agenda. It’s been wonderful. We’re just a few minutes late. 

Ricky, do you have anything else to add? I know Mark doesn’t. He 

wants to get out of here. I need to entertain a motion to adjourn 

the meeting. Is there a motion? 

MR. RITCHIE: 

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Is there a second? 

MS. KAGAN: 

Second. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We’ll do a roll call vote now. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, everybody. We’ll see you tomorrow. 

*** 

[The Board recessed at 5:08 p.m. on April 25, 2023.] 

300 
 

 

Wednesday, April 26, 2023 

MEETING RECONVENES 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Good morning. 

[Chorus of good mornings] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We’re on the last third of our meeting, so this is great. Two 

thirds has happened already, so hopefully, everybody got a good 

night’s sleep. I did not, so I’m telling you in advance. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yesterday was a lot smoother than today’s going to be, I bet, 

but I just got some coffee, so that’ll help. 

But thank you all for being here today. I was waiting for 

Ricky to show up. He’s around somewhere, and a couple people I 

know are running late, and I know some people have to leave early, 

so we’re going to try to get through today as best as possible. 

Today’s agenda is brief. If you go through it, we should be 

able to wrap up before noon, well before noon, but the main item 

we’re going to discuss today include looking back at some of the 

history of how we got here in terms of this agency and the role that 

we play. 

301 
 

 

 

 

 

Two areas we’re going to cover this morning, first of all, 

we’re going to talk about the EAC Clearinghouse and the 

importance of the resources that are being given by this agency to -

- oh, I’m so sorry, thank you -- and that’s going to happen first, as 

soon as I finish speaking. And we have our two panelists. Thank 

you for being patient with us there. 

And then, right after that, proceeding after that, we will have 

a lookback at HAVA. Twenty years. This is the 20th anniversary of 

the Help America Vote Act, and we’re going to have some key 

players in that. Commissioner Palmer’s going to moderate that 

section with Doug Lewis and Alysoun McLaughlin, our former chair, 

as well as Pat Leahy from the Senior Government Advisors and 

Public Policy of the EAC. 

And then, we’re going to take a quick break, and myself and 

Commissioner Palmer, we’re going to moderate NVRA at 30. I’m 

one of those people, Jim Dickson and a few others around here 

were around when we had the beginning of the NVRA, but I’m 

going to go into a little bit of the history of how we got there. And 

it’s an interesting story. I won’t give you the full version, but you’ll 

get the five-minute version. And many of you are being asked to 

chime in, and we’re going to actually go around the room and 

hopefully have a few of you give reflections on the importance of 

that law and its viability in this current system that we’re in. 

302 
 

 

 

 

And then, we’re going to have a closing discussion and 

some cleanup items that we need to do. And then, afterwards, 

we’re going to make some closing remarks, some 

acknowledgements, and then, we’re going to adjourn, but that won’t 

be the end of our day. 

We are hopeful that many of you will be able to join the EAC 

at their offices, and we’re going to be able to witness EAC in action. 

And I believe one of our actual Board of Advisors members will be 

testifying at that hearing, Scott Wiedmann, who is the Acting 

Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Is that right? 

MR. WIEDMANN: 

Correct. Yes. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And you’ll be probably asked to encourage people to come, 

but we want to do that early on. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But the fact that one of our advisory board members is 

testifying is a really good thing, so we really encourage you to be 

there. 

Is there anything else we need to add to the agenda before 

we sort of get started? Anybody want to add anything? Okay. 

MR. CRAMER: 

303 
 

 

 

 

Could I just add, just as an invitation, a friend of many of us, 

Rodney Davis, is having a reception tonight for his new position at 

Cozen O’Connor, and he’s invited anybody who wants to join 5:30 

at the top of Charlie Palmer’s, so anybody who’s still here is 

welcome. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. 

Last night, after our meeting, we had an Executive 

Committee meeting, and we were able to go over yesterday’s 

meeting, when we were actually sworn in as your officers for the 

year, so we want thank you for, again, that election. 

I have a couple remarks, and I’m going to ask both Ricky 

and Mark if they want to say a few words. But I want to first thank 

you all for kind of unplugging from your regular life and coming 

here, making this trip. I know a lot of the work that you do is behind 

the curtains. You help build our democracy from there. 

But in today’s session, you’re going to hear a lot about the 

legislative battles that we’ve gone through. You’ve heard a little bit 

about that yesterday. But campaigns are made up of rallies and 

ads and court battles and litigation and knocking on doors and all 

kinds of things, but we know that many of you actually do the real 

work of the elections, which is what happens after people cast their 

vote. And sometimes, people forget that that’s one of the most 

304 
 

 

 

 

 

important things, so to hear about the audits and to hear about the 

things that happen to make sure ballots are counted properly is 

important. You’ll hear me talk more about this when I go into the 

NVRA. 

So it’s good that we are here to help make sense of all of it 

and you make sense of all of it, and so the post-election period is 

something that I think is very important. We know that, many times, 

this kind of work is not very well paid, that budgets are never 

enough to do what you want to do, and there’s never enough 

appreciation given to you, so I want to just, again, thank you for 

what you’ve done. 

And this organization has been designed as a clearinghouse 

to provide guidance to the states and their work, and this Board is 

to provide guidance to the EAC, and so our primary responsibility is 

to give our four Commissioners and the staff the kind of expertise 

that we have and the diversity of our views. And so, we’re here 

because we have different point of views from different 

perspectives. 

I come from the activist community from the voting rights 

community, which is an important thing, and I can sit right next to a 

good friend who is an election official and a former Secretary of 

State. These are the kinds of people who make up this Board. 

Tom was on Capitol Hill when I first met him. Ben Hovland moved 

305 
 

 

 

 

 

all kinds of real estate on Capitol Hill when he was with the Rules 

Committee. And Christy McCormick, again, has been with the 

Justice Department and a lot of other agencies and brings a lot of 

expertise to this. 

So there’s a lot of good staff people and good 

commissioners with a lot of history, and ‘Doug’ Palmer [sic] has 

also joined us and been a part of this effort as well as our DFO and 

helped lead this effort, Doug at 50, of course. It’s an inside joke 

now. I don't think we will be able to say it right. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But thank you for what you’ve done. Thank you for our 

election. And I’ll just turn it over to Ricky Hatch, our vice-chair. 

MR. HATCH: 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing I would add is, as 

Board members, you know, our role, as an advisory board, is 

distinct and spelled out, and I think it would be helpful for us to go 

over that in more specifics at another time so that we can know 

what we can do. 

But think about ways that we can help the Commission. 

What a unique mix of backgrounds and experiences and 

representation that we can bring to the Commission to help them. 

And for the Commissioners, we’d ask, please let us know if there’s 

306 
 

 

 

 

 

 

specific topics or processes you’d like us to review and advise on. 

We would be more than happy to do that. We really appreciate the 

Commission and, of course, all the Board members. Thank you. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

Yesterday was extraordinary, and working with the staff 

during this last year to kind of pull all these pieces was 

extraordinary, and I just want to underline how fortunate we are and 

how grateful I am personally that we have this staff and new 

leadership able to sort of make our time valuable, who are all busy, 

and that’s the common bad news or good news, if you want to 

throw it that way. And it’s our staff that help us then make sure that 

we're using our time well and these are really put together. So 

thank you to staff and leadership, and thanks to all of us. We’re 

able to meet each other and possibly do other things together, but 

we're able to be effective while we’re doing this business. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

EAC CLEARINGHOUSE RESOURCES PRESENTATION 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

No, thank you all. 

So, without further ado, let’s go to our first panel and the 

EAC Clearinghouse presentation. We have two resident experts, 

who have been on staff and doing the day-to-day work. It’s an 

307 
 

 

 

outstanding staff, and thank you for being patient. We’ll first hear 

from Ben Jackson, who’s a Senior Election Specialist on election 

matters, Matters Expert at the EAC. And Adam Podowitz-Thomas 

from the subject matter expert as well. So it’s all yours, so take it 

away. 

MR. JACKSON: 

Good morning. Thank you for the introduction, and welcome to day 

two of the Board of Advisors meeting. 

My name is Ben Jackson. I am a Senior Subject Matter 

Expert at the EAC. Prior to joining the EAC, I was a staff attorney 

at Disability Rights Maryland. My work was funded by HAVA, and I 

was responsible for ensuring election accessibility from voter 

registration through marked casting and verify ballots in the State of 

Maryland, and I am joined by Adam Podowitz-Thomas, who can 

introduce himself. 

MR. PODOWITZ-THOMAS: 

Good morning, everyone. As been said, my name is Adam 

Podowitz-Thomas. I am also a Subject Matter Election Expert with 

the agency. Prior to joining the EAC, I was with the Princeton 

Gerrymandering Project, where I was the senior legal strategist. 

And in a life before elections, I was in environmental (inaudible). 

I’m going to turn it back to Ben to talk about some of the 

resources that we have available. 

308 
 

 

 

 

MR. JACKSON: 

Thank you. And so, before we get into the resources, we 

want to introduce the clearinghouse division itself. It’s made up of 

six members currently and, you know, will possibly expand in the 

future, but it is made up of former local election officials, as well as 

subject matter experts. And the EAC clearinghouse division is 

helping to fulfill the EAC’s mandate under HAVA. It’s a statutory 

mission to gather resources from state and locals and share them 

amongst the community, as well as creating new resources. Okay. 

Thank you. 

And so, over the past two years, the EAC has released 40 

guides, toolkits, and more on a variety of different subject matter 

areas. So these address issues facing election officials, election 

workers across the country, and we’re identifying safety threats, 

protecting the integrity of voting, and ensuring voters with 

disabilities and those with language barriers can fully participate in 

the elections. 

MR. PODOWITZ-THOMAS: 

I’m going to walk us through a few of the resources that 

we’ve released over the past few months. 

First up is the second edition of our Election Management 

Guidelines. Within the agency, we refer to those as the EMGs, so if 

you hear me use that term, that’s what I’m referring to. The EMGs 

309 
 

 

 

were last updated about 15 years ago, so the update was well 

overdue. Obviously, election administration has changed quite a bit 

in those intervening years. 

And the EMGs have 19 chapters that cover a range of topics 

that are of use to election administrators. They were updated 

based on input from local and state officials as well as other 

stakeholders, and they serve as a resource for the new and 

experienced election officials, sort of regardless of the size of the 

jurisdiction or the resources that are available to those individuals. 

If you’re interested in more information specifically about the 

EMGs, we actually have a flyer at the registration desk that has a 

list of all 19 chapters and the QR code that’ll take you directly to the 

pdf of the document. 

Next, and I’m sure this is one that you all are intimately 

familiar with, election officials have been facing just an inundation 

of public records requests over the past few years, and you know, 

it’s a hard thing to do. A lot of folks don’t have a lot of experience 

dealing with these requests from the public, but it’s really important 

that they get it right. 

So the EAC has released a best practices guide that 

addresses these requests, and it highlights innovative methods that 

are available that election officials have used, including, for 

example, having a public reading room or a public-facing website 

310 
 

that has FAQs and answers to those questions and resources that 

are often requested. The guide also includes information about sort 

of how election officials can very efficiently address these requests 

as they come into their office. 

And then, the last one from me, and then I’ll pass it back to 

Ben, this is actually a suite of resources that the agency has 

debuted recently on voter-less maintenance, again, another topic 

that’s been in the news a lot lately and is of really profound 

importance to election officials. 

We have released a suite of resources to support election 

officials with this, including a best practices guide, a fact sheet, and 

a toolkit that helps election officials communicate with their voters 

and the public about this process. 

Additionally, we held a public hearing in March, featuring 

election officials as well as a Subject Matter Expert, Sara Brady, 

who I’m sure you all know, spoke on the panel how different 

jurisdictions manage voter-less maintenance, the challenges they 

face, and best practices other jurisdictions could implement. A 

recording of this hearing is available on our website or our YouTube 

channel, if you’d like to check it out. 

And like I said, now I’m going to turn it back to Ben, who’s 

going to highlight a few more recent resources as well as one of our 

upcoming resources. 

311 
 

 

 

MR. JACKSON: 

Okay. Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, so thank you, Adam. 

So one of the other more recent resources that we’ve had is 

the alternative voting methods covers different voting methods 

currently being used or considered across the country, and so, this 

is based on feedback that we have received from state and local 

election officials as the subject matter expert team has attended 

national conferences. 

We want to kind of be preemptive and provide information to 

state and local election officials and policymakers on what the 

practical implications are of making these changes, of moving from, 

you know, a first-pass voting system to different alternative voting 

methods, so you know, making sure that, at the outset, everybody 

has the information that they need to really make smooth and 

effective elections. 

And then, another resource that we have, just recognizing, 

again, the landscape and looking forward, is just multiple election 

equipment resources to, you know, this is very important to 

maintain election integrity, and as we’re looking, you know, VVSG 2 

has passed. Labs are getting certified that, you know, with a 

possibility of states and different localities producing new 

equipment, what do you do with the previous equipment. So we’re 

making sure that everybody has the resources they need to 

312 
 

 

 

 

address these upcoming issues in a way that ensures election 

integrity. 

This is a really great resource. This is our EAC toolkit. 

Pause. Take a picture of the QR code. If not, these resources are 

available on our website and at the desk there, but you know, these 

toolkits, the best practices, FAQs for election officials, the National 

Poll worker Recruitment Toolkit, they’ve all been hits on the road as 

we have presented them to election officials across the country, 

you know, really helpful for, you know, specifically the FAQ for 

election officials is great for voters as well as new staff that we 

recognize that there is a turnover in the field and that you want to 

ensure that, you know, these top-level items are being covered in a 

way that makes sense to both voters and new election officials. 

And then finally, for me, the upcoming disability accessibility 

resources, the area that is near and dear to me. We have a 

disability voting accessibility for the 2022 election, so over the 

previous probably six election cycles, the EAC has contracted 

professors at Rutgers University to conduct accessibility surveys, 

post-election accessibility surveys across the country, and you 

know, this data can be used by policymakers, state and local 

officials to determine where the barriers are, where the gaps are so 

we can, you know, fulfill the mission of HAVA and the ADA to 

ensure that voters with disabilities are ensured access. 

313 
 

 

 

In addition to that, we have a retrospective -- I know we have 

the panel, the NVRA 20 coming up, but we also did a panel to take 

a look at the impact of HAVA over the past two decades to see, you 

know, what practically has been done, you know, from the 

perspective of voters with disabilities. 

And finally, the EAC has contracted with the National Center 

for Accessible Media, the people who created captioning, to create 

a webinar-style training series, to ensure that election officials are 

able to communicate with voters with disabilities in mediums that 

are accessible, as well as covering areas such as physical 

accessibility and just general interaction in the polling place. So 

really excited to have these coming up this year. 

MR. PODOWITZ-THOMAS: 

And I’m going to talk about one more resource we have 

coming out later this year that we’re really quite excited about. It’s 

what we’re referring to at the EAC Clearinghouse Network, and it 

will be a peer-to-peer website of election officials from across the 

country who are able to connect with each other as well as with the 

EAC. 

So it’s an opportunity for folks to share resources across 

jurisdictions that they have developed that they have found really 

impactful. It’s an opportunity for the EAC to make sure that our 

resources are getting out to all the users across the country who 

314 
 

 

 

 

 

could utilize what we’ve developed. And I think there’s some really 

cool features about it that I want to highlight. 

The first is that it’s organized by communities, so there will 

be different ways that people can connect over topics. So if 

someone’s, for example, interested in audits, we have an audits 

community, and they can share resources and information with 

each other and engage in real-time conversation with folks that they 

otherwise might not be able to interact with. 

It's also going to have a resource library, so when either the 

EAC, as an agency, or users load documents into the system, it’ll 

automatically populate into this resource library. Folks will be able 

to run searches across the entire website and find those resources 

very easily, so it’s going to be much more user friendly than, I think, 

going to, you know, hundreds of different websites, trying to find 

these resources. 

And then, the final thing that I want to highlight about it that 

we’re really very excited about is it’s going to have a searchable 

member directory. So when members join, they’re going to fill out a 

profile. They’ll put their current and former affiliations, you know, if 

you’ve worked in multiple election offices, where have you been, 

but even more importantly, you’re going to be able to list your skills 

and your interests. 

315 
 

And so, if you’re an election official, and you’re really curious 

about, let’s say, communicating with the public. You can run a 

search and say, I want to find somebody who’s an expert in this 

area, and this person may be across the country or right next door, 

but you’re going to be able to connect with them on our system, talk 

with one another about best practices, what they’ve learned, and 

really build your skillset up. So it’s going to be a really tremendous 

opportunity for folks to get to know one another, connect, share 

resources across the country, and we’re really, really quite excited 

about debuting that this year. 

And then finally, and I’m going to leave this slide up for a 

minute in case, again, anybody wants to use the QR code. You 

know, we have a number of other resources that we just didn’t have 

time today to highlight that are available for election officials. Some 

of those you’ve heard about, I think both today and then yesterday 

in some of the other panels. 

I want to highlight particularly our resources on voting 

technology, election security, and language access. And then, one 

thing that hasn’t made this slide yet, but we’re also pretty excited 

about is a guide that we’ve released for election officials on how to 

work with their state legislators. And we did that in cooperation with 

NCSL, and I’m very excited to get that out in the hands of election 

officials across the country. 

316 
 

 

All of these resources here and many others are available on 

our website. Again, the link’s there. The QR code’s there. 

But I will move onto our last slide, which is just to ask if you 

all have any questions for us. We’re happy to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Well let me -- I’m sorry. Commissioner Palmer, did you? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

I have a really good question for you. I think the one that 

you left off that was a big hit last year was chain of custody. Could 

you talk about that one just for a second? 

MR. JACKSON: 

Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Palmer. Yeah, the chain 

of custody was a huge hit last year. We got a lot of mileage out of 

that, and we hope that all of our resources are, you know, utilized 

as much as the chain of custody document. 

But yeah, I mean, it was really responsive to the needs of 

state and local election officials, right? You know, there were 

questions that people were receiving from the public, from the 

media about, you know, how their ballots are being tracked, where 

they’re going, and so it just really broke down the process in a way 

that was, I thought, easily digestible, no matter, you know, kind of 

what sphere that you are related to elections. And I hope that our 

other resources are as equally responsive to those needs that, you 

317 
 

know, we have a document, and then you can easily track 

throughout the process, you know, how equipment is being moved, 

how ballots are being moved. 

And then, you know, election officials who had questions 

who might’ve been new to the process, they might’ve lost this 

institution were able to then go there and utilize and maybe ramp 

up, you know, their security through that using the chain of custody 

document. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

One of the things I wanted to point out, when we were 

preparing for our panels this afternoon, a couple months ago, 

myself, Sara, and Doug Palmer, Commissioner Palmer were 

discussing the list maintenance concern of components of the two 

panels we’re going to have following, and he asked me to watch the 

hearing on list maintenance. And I have to tell you, it was an 

eyeopener. 

So I’m going to ask Sara, if she’s in the room, but if she 

could send that link to that hearing around to everybody. If you just 

watch that, I think you’ll get a lookdown into where we’re headed 

and where we might be headed. 

And I don't know if any of the Commissioners want to say 

something about that hearing, but it really, to me, was -- the March 

318 
 

 

 

 

 

hearing on list maintenance was really something for us to all be 

kind of aware of, so I’ll just leave it at that. 

But if you want to say anything, here’s your chance. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Sara just came in. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Sara’s on the spot. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah. Sara, I was just talking about the list maintenance link 

you sent me that helped me, you know, get a better appreciation for 

the list maintenance issues that we’re facing around the country, 

and if you could send that link to all the members of the Board, that 

would be --

MS. BRADY: 

Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

MS. BRADY: 

I understand our (inaudible) watched me on state TV, so I 

have had --

319 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, I saw it on a 63”. 

[Laughter] 

MS. BRADY: 

But yeah, I think the hearing was a really great conversation, 

and I hope that the resources and information that we are able to 

share from that will be a benefit to the membership. I will have 

(inaudible). 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Great. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

And I’d just add, Greg, thanks, you know, again, I think that 

was a very good conversation. It was a good opportunity to lift up 

and sort of have a conversation on this issue. I think subsequent 

conversations from that hearing, you know, both with the Local 

Leadership Council, you did a series of sort of regional 

conversations. You know, I think obviously there’s been a lot of 

national dialogue combined with some mis- and disinformation 

around the list maintenance process. 

I think, like so many processes in elections, you know, for 

folks who do it, for the folks who live this and think about it all the 

time, sort of, we understand that nuance. For most people, for 

320 
 

 

 

 

most voters, there are, you know, safeguards and measures in 

place that aren’t out there. 

And so, I think, you know, whether it’s the chain of custody 

documents or some of these list maintenance documents, you 

know, that were referred to, some of the toolkits around 

communicating with voters. I mean, I’m sure every election official 

in this room has probably gotten angry calls from people about a 

mailer that they didn’t send out. You know, certainly, I remember 

getting those. 

And then people just don’t understand the process, you 

know, obviously the calls about -- actually, I was talking to Shane 

yesterday about Shane’s got Missouri State in Greene County, you 

know, shocker. People, college students move. You know, he’s 

got a lot of address changes in his county, and sometimes people 

get mail for somebody that doesn’t live there anymore. 

And so again, just a lot of these toolkits have been focused 

on, you know, both explaining the process, you know, again, trying 

to capture institutional knowledge, help folks get up to speed faster, 

but also potentially be used for voter education materials and 

repurpose that way as well. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

321 
 

 

 

 

This is a small thing, but it’s kind of large. In terms of eight 

years ago, when we went and started working at the EAC up in 

Silver Spring, we didn’t have the opportunity to actually have 

hearings on a regular basis, because we had to share our meeting 

space. So if we wanted to have something of significance, like that 

we're going to do today, to talk about military and overseas voters, 

we would have to wait three months out to actually schedule 

something like that. 

So this is an opportunity to take advantage of those things, 

to come and see our new facility’s hearing room and not have mice 

run across your feet as well. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

So, when we did this maintenance hearing a month ago or 

so, it was significant to me to say, hey, this is a topic we want to 

talk about. Hey, let’s have a hearing on it. And we can do that two 

weeks out with giving notice to the Federal Registry and those sorts 

of things. 

So having the resources that we have with our subject 

matter expert to talk about those things and talk about the things 

that are significant to you -- I guess I need to be quiet. But anyway, 

so to be able to have these resources, take advantage of that. 

Take pictures of the QR code, so that, you know, you might not 

322 
 

 

 

 

 

think about it now, but you think, hey, I think the EAC might have 

something on that. And go to our website, because it’s going to be 

updated soon and things like that as well. So take advantage of 

this. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Mr. Hicks. 

And so, the floor’s open for any questions for our two experts 

here. Oh, I’m sorry. Please. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Hello. Thank you so much. My name is Hannah Ibanez. 

I’m with the Access Board. 

And I was wondering if you had an idea of when we could 

expect to see the data from the Rutgers study on the ’22 election 

on voters with disabilities. I think we feel that it would be very 

useful, but we have some concerns that it might be released too 

late, so I’m wondering if you have any information on that. Thank 

you. 

MR. JACKSON: 

Certainly. And so, hopefully within the next month or so, and 

I think the 21st of April, the Census released new information that 

will help the data get quantified, so currently, we have the 

percentages breakdown, so you know, no quotes here, but for 

example, we would say that 60% of voters with disabilities had, you 

323 
 

 

 

 

 

know, early-voted, used ballot drop boxes, that kind of stuff. And 

now, with this newly released Census data, the professors are 

going to crunch that so then we can quantify that to say, oh, that 

means 8 million voters used that stuff. 

So it is very close to in process. Had a minor hiccup. 

Rutgers went on strike a week or so. 

[Laughter] 

MR. JACKSON: 

And that was not something that we typically planned for here and 

don’t have control over, but we’re still in communication and hope 

to have that information released in the next month. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Mark Ritchie. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

I’ve noticed, in our two days of meetings, that there’ve been 

referencing to some amazing hearings or somebody’s presentation 

or whatever. One of the resources that I really appreciate is when 

somebody says, hey, there was this hearing, and Sara was 

fantastic, and if you’re interested in that subject, here’s the link. 

And that’s something that the clearinghouse, for us, or maybe in the 

modern era, somebody done automatically, but I would appreciate 

324 
 

 

 

that kind of alerting that says. You know, because people do take 

time, prepare, and so sometimes it’s the high level that we don’t get 

very often. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

I would suggest signing up for our newsletter. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

This is Commissioner Palmer. 

MR. RITCHIE: 

(inaudible) love that that blast comes out and Sara’s on a 69” 

screen. Click here. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So periodically, we do, as a DFO, send out materials as they 

come out to the boards. Of note, I don't want to speak out of turn 

here, but I think the network that we’re developing, our boards are 

going to be some of those communities, the very first communities, 

and so those materials will all be available through your 

membership of this Board of Advisors. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Yeah, Jim Dickson. Go ahead. 

MR. DICKSON: 

This may not be the appropriate time for this question, but 

we heard yesterday the shocking numbers of how many new 

325 
 

 

 

election officials there are in the country, and in the past, most 

election officials don’t attend conferences, for whatever reasons. In 

particular, I’m thinking about a lot of smaller, rural jurisdictions, 

where it’s one or two people, and they’ve got 18 tasks besides 

elections. And I’m wondering if you’ve put any thought into how 

you’re going to connect with those election officials who are not 

attending state conferences. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Good question. Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

I’m happy to jump in on that, Jim. Thank you for the 

question. 

I think, you know, we’re absolutely conscious of that, and I 

think a lot of the structure that we’ve been building at the agency is 

targeted that, you know, HAVA created this Board and the 

Standards Board and the TGDC. We created the Local Leadership 

Council in part for that issue, to have a conversation with the 

leadership of each state, professional association to be able to 

figure out how to get down to that last mile of those officials who, 

you know, aren’t able to get away from their offices or don’t have 

the resources to attend so many of the national conferences that 

we do get to go to. So I think that’s a big piece structurally. 

326 
 

 

 

 

 

I think, you know, we’re hopeful that the Clearinghouse 

network that we just spoke about will be one way that we can do 

that. 

And then another area, you know, I think in this moment, so 

much of the conversation yesterday and so much of our 

conversations at the agency probably, you know, post-2020 have 

been thinking about, you know, with this turnover we’re seeing in 

the field, you know, there’s this need to capture as much 

institutional knowledge as we can and then help new people get up 

to speed as quickly as we can. Some of that has been through 

some of the resources we’ve talked about, but we’re also exploring 

ways to do additional trainings, make those asynchronous, make 

those digestible, smaller pieces. You know, those are things that 

we consistently hear. 

You know, again, I mentioned some of the pilots yesterday, 

but you know, that is another one of those pieces that we’re looking 

at. In that context, to think about, you know, how we can provide 

these things, how we can learn from that, but make them useful to 

sort of jurisdictions of all sizes across the country, and then again, 

take back what we learn and hopefully hold that up to Congress 

and say, you know, you’ve been hearing about these issues and 

these challenges or the space. We think this is the solution, and 

we hope that you will support it adequately. 

327 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Please, Chris. 

MS. WALKER: 

Just a quick comment. Chris Walker, Jackson County Clerk, 

Oregon. 

And I just want to stress how important the relationships that 

Ben, Tom, Christy, and Don have established with the Election 

Administration community. It is so important, something that 10, 15 

years ago, even though the Commission was new, that we hadn’t 

really even looked at as a resource for. So what you all have done 

with this group with everyone around the country has been nothing 

short of phenomenal in the support you’re giving us. So I just 

wanted to pass that on how much appreciation I have for everything 

that you all do. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. I’m sorry. 

MR. CRAMER: 

A quick question about kind of filling in the gap, kind of 

piggybacking a little bit. With all the new election officials across 

the country, have you all considered doing, like, regional workshops 

or coming to the state and actually teach the best practices rather 

than having it on your website? Because I think, and I’m only going 

to speak to South Carolina and counties with one or two people as 

328 
 

 

 

 

 

full-time staff, where maybe they could attend a workshop, but 

they’re not going to sit and probably go through a website to 

navigate and, quite frankly, probably don’t have the best resources 

to do so. 

So I think there’s an opportunity for the EAC to stand in the 

gap with workshops with best practices tailored to, for example, in 

South Carolina, our way of doing things. Because I think 

sometimes you get the best practices, right, but it doesn’t apply to 

you necessarily, and you’ve got to tweak things, and I’m not trying 

to, you know, speak down to anybody at all, but everybody comes 

with different resources, different backgrounds, and for some folks 

to, you know, maybe tailor it to their jurisdiction would be a lot of 

work. 

So it could be a helpful resource that you come into, for 

example, South Carolina. I’ll invite you in. Please come. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

I’ll host you. We’ll do a workshop. I’d love -- no, I’m serious, 

because you know, standing around, like there are a lot of great 

things, and I was talking to Don yesterday about this. There’s a lot 

of great resources across this country, and this portal, this, you 

know, clearinghouse ability for us to talk with other folks is going to 

be tremendous and phenomenal. We need that desperately. We, 

329 
 

 

 

 

 

Ricky and I, have talked with Chris with NACo. Like, how do we get 

all the election officials in one platform? It doesn’t exist. 

And everybody’s trying to do that. Everybody. It’s the 

number one thing. At every board I’m on, they talk about, well, we 

need to bring election officials together. How do we do that? So 

that’s going to be great, but I think even drilling down deeper is the 

regional workshops or state workshops, where you come in and 

give a specific, here are your best practices for your state. I know 

it's big. I’ll sign up for it. if no other state wants to do it, we’ll start 

with South Carolina. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

So just what do you think about that? You know, I know 

budgets are limited, but --

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

I’ll jump in there again, because actually, this is, like, a 

preview for part of the Local Leadership agenda in July. You know, 

I think part of what we recognize or in these conversations that 

we’ve been having to think through this, you know, a big part of it is 

meeting people where they are. And again, you know, if we’ve 

learned anything in elections, it’s everybody does it a little different 

and, you know, one size doesn’t fit all. 

330 
 

 

 

 

 

 

And so again, recognizing that if you’re the only person in 

your office or if you’ve got two people in your office, you know, it 

might not matter where it is, you’re not going to be able to be there. 

And so maybe the asynchronous is the best option. 

But you know, one of the things we’ve been talking about, 

too, is how we then can package that so, you know, working with 

the LLC members or the presidents of the state associations, you 

know, we can come out to your conference, and here’s a menu of 

sort of trainings that we have that our subject matter experts can 

talk about that we can tailor to your state or work with you to tailor 

to your state and then provide that. 

And so, you know, again, if it works to come to a national 

thing, great. If it works for us to come to you, great. And if neither 

of those work, you know, hopefully there’s a way for you to access 

some of this online. 

So again, you know, I don't think there’s anything that’s 

going to be perfect here, but by having some variety, hopefully we 

can meet as many people as we can where they are at. 

MR. CRAMER: 

So Zoom is a really good thing, but like we were talking at 

breakfast, like, it’s so much better to be in person. 

[Chorus of agreement] 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND: 

331 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. 

MR. CRAMER: 

There’s just the quality of that that you can’t translate over a 

video. And I think we had that era of COVID where we all went to 

Zoom, and I think that’s still kind of prevalent, you know. With 

certain things, it’s the easiest way to connect with people, because 

you can do it instantaneously, wherever, if you’re in California or 

South Carolina. 

But I think the in-person aspect is so critical part of your 

mission with getting these resources to election officials, because it 

just kind of -- you know, here’s another Zoom link that I have to 

click on. And you can zone-out. I mean, like, if I zone-out here, I 

know some of us are on our phones -- I’m calling you out, I’m just 

kidding -- you know, it’s harder to zone-out in this setting, because 

you’re at the table, looking at people. 

It’s so easy to do that on a Zoom platform, where you’re 

being pulled in a million different directions, and you’re like, I can 

mute myself, turn my screen off, and I can go do my other project. 

Here, it’s a little bit more difficult. I have to actually leave the room 

and actually consciously have you all look at me as I leave the 

room and say, what’s he going to be doing? Is he grabbing some 

coffee? I’m just kidding. 

[Laughter] 

332 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. CRAMER: 

But I think it’s really my point is driven here home. It’s just 

in-person is going to be, I think, a huge, tremendous resource to 

election officials, because that’s actually what we prefer. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you so much. 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

Yeah, we’re --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I’m sorry. 

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

Can I just answer real quick? I mean, I just want you to 

know, you know, one of the efforts that we’re really, you know, 

pushing is getting to every state conference. We’ve been asking 

the state leaders when their conferences are, and we try to get at 

least one Commissioner to each of the state conferences. And 

hopefully, we can start doing some trainings in conjunction with 

that, bring some of our staff as well. 

And we're also working on -- we’re starting small, but you 

know -- an election academy, a training academy. We recognize 

that there’s a need for professionalism in training in the election 

community. And so, we’re just starting off with that, but you know, 

333 
 

 

hopefully that will grow to something that will be of help to those 

who are in rural areas who can’t get to us. 

We also recognize that there’s connectivity problems with 

some of the rural counties, so you know, that’s a challenge as well, 

but we are attempting to get to as many state conferences as we 

can and meet as many local election officials as we can. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Chair, for that comment, and again, all of us 

around the table will hopefully try to facilitate that, as we come from 

different states, to try to help get the entrée to the Commission. 

We are really running behind, but Barbara, can you say real 

quickly we’re going to go to --

MS. SIMONS: 

So I missed the beginning. I’m still from California. 

[Laughter] 

MS. SIMONS: 

And so I apologize if this has already been covered, but this 

is a question for Ben. And again, if you’ve already talked about it, 

just tell me and don’t answer it. 

Have you discussed the importance and the need for good 

mail options for voters with disabilities, drop boxes, the ability for 

family members to take their ballots to the polls, that sort of thing, 

and how important that is for voters with disabilities? Thank you. 

334 
 

 

 

MR. JACKSON: 

So we haven’t specifically addressed that this morning. We 

do have a best practices on ballot drop boxes, but definitely, I 

know, Barbara, we’ll be in touch, and, you know, I look forward to 

more feedback from all of you than I had the chance to touch base 

with Barbara yesterday evening, and so this is the kind of feedback 

that we’re looking for, as a part of the subject matter expert team is 

that we produce these resources, you review them, you digest 

them, you figure out what you think, you know, what other best 

practices could enhance our documents so then we can re-release 

them or add addendums or whatever’s appropriate. So thanks 

again for bringing it up. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. I think, Senator, we’re going to go for 30 seconds, 

and then we’ve got to --

MS. KAGAN: 

My question’s going to be fast, and Ben, I’m directing it to 

you. Cheryl Kagan. 

Language access. So Spanish is a primary secondary 

language in Maryland, as you know, but there are a lot of other 

languages that are on the increase. What’s appropriate, and is 

there a threshold at which you believe that ballots, particularly let’s 

say mail-in ballots or something, or ballot-marketing devices, 

335 
 

 

 

 

 

should be translated into other languages? How should that 

decision be made? 

MR. JACKSON: 

And so, our language access has some best practices that 

are used for other states. I think California has a 3% threshold, but 

the biggest thing is all elections are local, and so, it’s whatever, you 

know, the community says or is, you know, responsive to the needs 

of the community members, because I know, for example, in 

Maryland, there’s a significant number of Haitian-Creole speakers, 

and that’s not covered under, you know, Section 203 of ERA, 

because it’s seen as an Indo-European language. 

But you have to be responsive to your community members. 

It’s only going to be local election officials that are going to be able 

to make those decisions and have that kind of knowledge that will 

be responsive to communities. 

So we can’t be that prescriptive, but we do have some best 

practices, you know, relating to language access that can be helpful 

for local officials to bring to policymakers to, you know, backup 

those arguments that they might have to increase access. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I respect our panel. Thank you so much for this. 

[Applause] 

336 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAVA AT 20 PAST AND FUTURE PANEL AND DISCUSSION 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And we’re going to quickly move to our next panel. Let me 

just read their names real quick. 

This is the HAVA -- we’re going to do two panels back to 

back. This is the first of two. It’s the Help America Vote Act at 20, 

which celebrated its 20th anniversary just this past October. Our 

panel will be moderated by our former chair -- I’m sorry, by our 

Commissioner Donald Palmer. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

I apologize, Mr. Commissioner, for saying Doug Palmer. I’m 

not sure where I got that from. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But he’s going to moderate. And the speakers we have are 

Doug Lewis, who’s the former Executive Director of the Elections 

Center who’s now retired; our former Chair Alysoun McLaughlin, 

who is the Deputy Elections Director of the Montgomery County 

Board of Elections; and Pat Leahy, a Senior Government Affairs 

and Public Policy Advisor of the EAC. 

Can you all get through that way? Okay. All right. So let’s 

let them get settled and situated, and then, when we have 

337 
 

 

 

questions, I’m going to ask you to make them brief, because we are 

running about ten minutes behind, and that can slip real fast. 

And I want to thank our panel again for coming. 

Commissioner Palmer, it’s on you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So I want to welcome. We’ve given a little bit of an intro of 

our guests, so I’m not going to repeat that, but anyone that knows 

‘Don’ Lewis [sic] --

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

I mean, excuse me, Mr. Chair -- goes back to the National 

Association Election Directors, has worked there and with the 

Election Center, of course, Alysoun McLaughlin from Montgomery 

County, and our own Pat Leahy, they all have a history with the 

Help America Vote Act in its sort of development and sort of 

implementation and sort of the first decade or two -- I’m sorry to 

age you all -- of sort of where HAVA was and where it’s been and 

where it’s going. 

And so, we had a pre-discussion, and I’m just going to let 

you launch in, because we’re running a little bit behind the time, 

launch into your initial five- to seven-minute comments, or a little bit 

more, and then we can open up for questions. 

Did we decide who’s going to go first? ‘Don’, I’ll let you go first. 

338 
 

 

 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEWIS: 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, let me do 

that. Okay. Now, we’re on. 

It’s nice to be with you all. I was the actual first chair of the 

Advisory Board after we created it, and so I really recognize the 

importance of what each of you all are doing in this process. 

MR. DICKSON: 

A little louder. 

MR. LEWIS: 

Yes, sir. The first person that came to me to talk about how 

do we fix what happened in election 2000 was Senator Torricelli’s 

staff. Sara Kimball [phonetic] from Torricelli’s staff, she said that 

Torricelli, who was chair of the Senatorial Democratic Campaign 

Committee, and Mitch McConnell, who at the time was chair of the 

Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, had agreed to get 

together to form a bipartisan legislation to start the process of fixing 

the problems that came up in election 2000. 

So, once we got convinced that it actually was going to be a 

bipartisan effort, that this was not one side trying to put the other 

side out of business with the normal operandi in most elections’ 

legislation, we decided to sit down and really go through it. And 

once we got the commitment on the House side with Bob Ney and 

339 
 

 

 

 

Steny Hoyer, and let me tell you those two guys were wonderful in 

terms of working together to create this. 

Rather than go back and do a step-by-step of how that thing 

progressed and what our hamstrings were and all of it -- it’s been in 

effect now for 20 years, and you’ve seen the impact of it -- let me 

tell you some of the things that, in my mind, were unique in 

legislation and were unique in how we got to where we are in 

passage of that act. 

I think what is most relevant that we don’t see nearly enough 

of anymore was it was clear that both sides were serious about 

getting together to work out a piece of legislation. That just doesn’t 

happen enough anymore, but in this particular instance, the impact 

of that election was so big that everybody was concerned that we 

might lose the whole elections process if we didn’t get busy and try 

to fix at least as much as we could in that process. 

I will tell you honestly, each side struggled for a while, 

because each side tried to gain partisan advantage, to the extent 

that they could. Once it became apparent that that was not going 

to work for either side, then we sort of came to a meeting of the 

minds of how do we get there. 

What also was unique was this was the first time probably in 

national election legislation that Congress was asking the people 

who were going to administer the process how to fix the process. It 

340 
 

 

 

was no longer partisan groups. Although those were there and 

singing loudly and clanging loudly, it was no longer just the party 

apparatus. It was indeed, look, we take this seriously enough, we 

want you all to guide us in this. 

And so, that was a unique aspect of this. And as a result, 

what we did was to make sure that each side had election officials 

who had gotten to their process in a partisan context but didn’t run 

elections as partisans, but ran them as elections administrators, to 

be able to communicate with their own party as to whether or not 

something was useful or not useful and whether or not it would 

accomplish the objective they wanted. 

The legislation was also different. It was the first time that 

we didn’t have legislation seeking to be very prescriptive in telling 

us how to do things. What we did was is we said to Congress, tell 

us what your objectives are. What is it you really want in terms of 

us getting this done? And then, how do we get to doing that 

without upsetting the way the system really operates with the realworld implications and the real-world administrative process? 

So we were able, by a course of education. The elections 

staff of both House Admin and Senate Rules Committee on both 

sides were really committed to learning as they went along. It didn’t 

mean that they weren’t also being beat upon to do the partisan 

routine, particularly by voter groups, but it did mean that they were 

341 
 

 

 

 

 

so interested in this, because they knew the whole process might 

be at peril. This was where we were as a result of it. And so that 

was something different and made it go. 

HAVA also gave a new definition to the rights of the blind 

particularly, and other disabilities, and I’ll let Pat talk to you about 

where we got on all of that, because this was a remarkable 

accomplishment on this. And so, it was also the first time that the 

federal government had spent a dime on elections. 

And then, we came, you know, where we sent three billion 

bucks. And so, it made a difference. It made a significant 

difference in how we were able to move up a timetable to actually 

get some changes made. 

And so, what does that mean to you guys today, as 

members of the Board of Advisors? Well, here’s what I think is 

instructive. When the first groups, when Torricelli and McConnell 

came and when Ney and Hoyer came, I proposed that we create a 

brand-new election legislation, election commission. 

And the reason for that was is that the Campaign Finance 

Commission, euphemistically, they call us the Federal Election 

Commission, was one of those bodies where it is in partisan 

gridlock almost all the time, and that’s on purpose. That’s by 

design by both parties to get there. And we didn’t belong in that 

environment. That is not who elections are for and about. 

342 
 

 

 

And so, I took a lot of heat over recommending creating a 

new federal agency and making it specific to election 

administration. But let me say to you, the result is now apparent 

why we did that. And you folks are serving the nation in terms of 

you represent the political spectrum. 

Some of you are here as the result of politicians. Some of 

you are here as a result of being commissioners on a bipartisan 

commission. And some of you are here as elections 

administrators. And that’s what is a good conversation. 

Let me say to you, over the years, the moderating influence 

of being able to have a knowledgeable staff, a knowledgeable 

process, a bipartisan commission where they can talk to members 

of their own and still come to agreement as to what really 

constitutes good elections is worthwhile. That’s what you’re here 

for. 

And the Commission, I’m going to say to you, Don and Ben, 

Tom, and Christy --

[Laughter] 

MR. LEWIS: 

-- this is remarkable. We’ve come so far in that 20 years. You all 

are an effective agency at this point. You’ve gotten enough staff at 

this point. You’re beginning to have good programs and money to 

be able to do this, and that’s important to democracy in America. 

343 
 

 

 

 

 

 

And let me end my portion with this. We tend to think that 

democracy is going to be around together. Well, the Greeks 

created it. They had it from about 508 B.C. to about 322 B.C., and 

then they lost it. We’ve been the one to survive the longest since 

then, but if we keep trying to destroy people’s fundamental faith in 

the fairness of elections, we, too, will see democracy go by the 

wayside. 

That’s what’s at stake. This is not about who gets to posture 

partisanly about whether this ought to happen or that ought to 

happen. You are the group who can carry the message to all of 

your own political structures, to all of your own support structures. 

Administering elections in a non-partisan way, or at least a 

bipartisan way, is what America needs and wants and exists for. 

And so, let me say to you, I’m going to end my part of the 

conversation just like two fellows of the same party. One of them 

said, boy, this is a dull party. He said, I believe I’m going to leave. 

And the other fellow said, that ought to help some. 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEWIS: 

Thank you. 

[Applause] 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

344 
 

 

 

 

Well, I’m going to throw out my notes, because Doug pretty 

much said everything that I was going to say. 

[Laughter] 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

Alysoun McLaughlin, now in Montgomery County, Maryland. 

But I was lobbying for the National Council of State 

Legislatures at the time, HAVA, and I’m going to make my opening 

remarks very short, because one of the things that we talked about 

wanting to do during our time here is to hear from some other 

voices, and there are a lot of faces in this room of people who were 

really intimately involved in all of the conversations at the time and 

have a lot to say that I’m not going to try to speak for Linda, speak 

for Leslie, to speak for all of the people who were in the room for so 

many of these conversations. I would love to hear from you. 

I will start by just noting that the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 obviously took two years to get passed after the 2000 

election, and March 23, 2004 was the first public hearing of the 

EAC. I know that, because I celebrate its birthday every year. 

[Laughter] 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

I was in labor at the time. 

[Laughter] 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

345 
 

 

 

My daughter was born that night. We have several people 

here in the room who have HAVA children, and our HAVA children 

have now grown up and are adults in their own right, and so is 

HAVA. 

You know, we’re really looking back now, nearly 20 years in 

the rearview mirror, at something that took time to build to get to 

this point. A word that I heard at the bar last night when people 

were talking about the conversations yesterday, was maturity. That 

wasn’t necessarily always the case. It takes time for dialogues to 

build. It takes time and lots and lots of iterations. It’s really just an 

organic process for the dialogue on these issues and for that faceto-face communication, the conversations around the bar, the 

conversations around the hollow squares that really make progress 

happen and people being able to broker that bipartisan 

conversation, that non-partisan conversation, to really bring people 

together on what needs to happen for the field to advance. 

And that’s obviously been set back with the pandemic. The 

last couple years, I think, has really not helped people’s ability to 

get together face to face, hash things out, get drunk, write on the 

back of envelopes, back of bar napkins, and come up with ideas of 

how we can really advance negotiation and compromise and 

advancement in the field. 

346 
 

 

 

 

A couple of things that I want to just flag before we go further 

in the dialogue is that, as Doug, I think, alluded, HAVA really was 

not a foregone conclusion. Neither the form of what we came up 

with, nor even just its existence was necessarily what everybody 

expected at the time. 

I cannot overstate how concerned state and local officials 

were about the prospect of a federal takeover of election 

administration. I cannot overstate the amount of anxiety and the 

amount of time spent with local and state officials at the table 

together talking with federal officials, talking with all of the 

stakeholders, to reach a confidence level that we could actually 

reach an agreement, that we could actually jump. 

And again, those personal relationships are key. The 

moment that Pat Leahy came out to an NCSL annual conference 

was a moment that the tide turned. And a lot of the state legislators 

in the room then were able to say, wow, you know, the House 

Republicans are really serious about wanting to do this, and this 

isn’t just, you know, Democrats over here and the Republicans over 

here in their corners, but it’s really important to the folks on the Hill 

to be coming out and talking to us, talking to the state officials and 

the local officials about how we’re going to do this right. 

You know, I remember sitting in the conference room over at 

the House Administration Committee hearing room on Bueller, 

347 
 

laying out this vision of a Standards Board and a Board of Advisors 

and all of these people and thinking, wow, this guy is crazy. This is 

never going to work. 

[Laughter] 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

And it’s working. And it is a process that has enabled us to bring 

people together in order to have a structure to really work through 

these issues. 

Now, is everybody at the table that needs to be at all times? 

Absolutely not. And I think that’s one of the things that we really 

need to work on is making sure that we’ve got the right people in 

the room in order to have these conversations. 

One of the things that I think we really -- it was important for 

us to do all of the things that we’ve done in terms of uniformity 

within states about things, but one of the things that I think we’ve 

really struggled with is the divide between the experience in urban 

jurisdictions and rural jurisdictions, large and small. 

One of the things that we were reminiscing out in the hallway 

about people who were involved in some of these early stages and 

Representative Vernon Ehlers talked a lot about the human factors 

in election administration, and he was not wrong. And we need to 

get back to talking more about the administrability of some of what 

we do. 

348 
 

 

 

I have a team member in my office who talks about the 

necessary and important and wonderful choices that we give to 

voters, but he describes it as a Cheesecake Factory member, that 

we’ve gotten to the point where we have so many different things 

that we’re administrating, so many different things that the cooks 

are preparing in the kitchen, so many different choices for the 

voters to make, that it becomes unwieldy and difficult, both in the 

kitchen and at the table, when the voter is trying to understand their 

options. 

And so, I think we, as a community, really need to grapple 

with that. We can only do what our systems and our people can 

do, and right now, I think we’re really seeing the difficulties of the 

people of the election administration, the election administrators 

themselves crying uncle, and saying, you know, there’s only so 

much we can do and we can do well. And I think, as a community, 

we will really need to grapple with that and really identify how we 

can connect those pieces. 

Grants, the whole conversation about grants and the 

structure of the grants in HAVA, I think that in the early years, 

obviously the expectation was that we were going to have the onetime-only money that was going to come out, but you know, what 

survived was the HHS, the polling place accessibility grants, which 

year after year after year, we saw continue to get funded. And so 

349 
 

 

 

the money that had a constituency was something that we were 

able to really identify on the ground what this money was going to 

do. 

And so, continuing to have that dialogue, continuing to get to 

the point where we connect what we’re trying to accomplish with 

tools that we’re using and the people on the ground who are doing 

the job. 

And I’m going to shut up now, because we have a lot of 

people who want to speak, and we’ll get back to the details later. 

I’m on. Hey, I’m Pat. I work here with the Election 

Assistance Commission. To my left -- you can’t see him, you may 

have seen him come in -- is my guide dog, Hogan, who has found a 

little piece of a bagel, I think on the floor. 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEAHY: 

Guide dogs do have fun, just so you know. 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEAHY: 

But it reminds me of when we were putting HAVA together at 

the staff level, Jim Dickson was a constant presence, being from 

the Association of People with Disabilities, and Jim would bring his 

350 
 

 

dog, Yankee, at the time, into the office, and my dog at the time 

and his dog would, like, run around the office a little bit and hang 

out. So there was definitely this, like, personal side to HAVA. And 

Jim, thank you for your leadership on election reform and disability 

provisions in particular. 

But thanks for having me here today. As Doug and Alysoun 

mentioned and Commissioner Hicks, I’m sure, will shout about, too, 

this was a bipartisan, bipartisan effort. 

And I had a couple points to leave with you on HAVA. I 

remember being in the room, and it took a couple weeks to craft 

just this Board on paper and the tradeoff of this group versus that 

group and how do we balance this and party affiliation and making 

sure that it ran well and worked well. And it was a carefully 

balanced compromise, and I think it was just such a good thing to 

see that, to see everyone working together. You know, the people, 

Leslie is here and Linda and Jim and Commissioner Hicks and 

Alysoun and Doug, and I don’t think -- and Jim, obviously. And you 

know, I remember many times going up to meet with them, and 

they would come meet with us for hours and hours. 

But I wanted to lead off with just this idea of bipartisanship 

and working together. There was a gentleman who was my boss, 

so I worked for Chairman Ney in House Administration. And then 

my immediate boss was a guy named Chet Kalas. And I don't 

351 
 

 

 

know. You all probably remember Chet if you were around back 

then. A Democrat state administrator from Ohio, who the Chairman 

was good friends with and knew he was a practitioner and 

understood government, and he said, come out here and help me 

put this bill together. 

And Chet quarterbacked this bill. He would take any 

meeting with anybody. He would listen for as long as they wanted 

to talk, and I was Chet’s assistant in this process. And just seeing 

that and learning from him and seeing that theme come through 

the bill. And Alysoun and Doug would come in, and we’d meet with 

them for hours and how it just came together with the groups and, 

you know, all of us working together. It's no mistake that HAVA 

passed with 92 votes in the Senate and 357 in the House. That’s 

pretty good bipartisanship. 

I will keep it brief. Doug and Alysoun mentioned the 

importance of the disability provisions in HAVA. I remember it was 

late summer of 2001, and there was a Presidential Blue Ribbon 

Commission that had been instituted to come up with some ideas to 

throw into the pot as we were working on the bill. And they came in 

and briefed us, and it was very well done. This is Ford-Carter 

Commission. And a gentleman named Phil Zelikow was the 

executive director. 

352 
 

 

And after their briefing to us, which was fantastic, he pulled 

me aside, and he was like, hey, I just wanted to let you know, just 

came from the Oval Office meeting with the President, and he told 

me that one of the major things he wants to accomplish with this bill 

is to make sure that people with disabilities had a private and 

independent vote. I was like, okay. We’ll take care of it, sir. 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEAHY: 

So we did, but it was a lot of work. And organizations, like 

National Federation of the Blind, and Jim’s organization, American 

People with Disabilities, Paralyzed Veterans of America, we had a 

disability working group that would meet all the time. And just 

crafting that and making sure that Senator Dodd’s folk were happy 

with it and that Hoyer’s people and the Republicans were happy 

and just putting it all together was quite remarkable. 

And I think you definitely see it today with the EAC. You 

have 50 million Americans with disabilities that are of voting age 

population. This Commission has made extraordinary progress in 

working with election officials to provide election officials with tools 

and to provide the voters with disabilities with options and privacy 

and independence. 

And then I’ll just close with looking head. Alysoun and Doug 

mentioned that one lesson from HAVA that I certainly took from it 

353 
 

was the importance of pushing through and persevering. And 

HAVA almost didn’t happen probably like four times. The one time 

I definitely remember was after 9/11, and we stopped meeting for 

maybe a couple weeks, and we were working on security of the 

Capitol and keeping Members safe and airlines, and it just kind of 

fell off the radar. 

And I remember Steny Hoyer and Bob Ney got together, and 

they brought us in, and they were like, hey, we just need to know 

that if there ever was a time that a vote was important and 

democracy was important, this certainly is it. And we got back 

together and started moving forward, and you know, eight, nine 

months later, you know, HAVA happened. 

So that’s certainly one lesson I learned from HAVA: 

persevere, on this Board or in election administration. And then 

also, the idea of pushing the envelope a bit. We certainly did it with 

disability provisions, with some of the technology provisions in the 

bill. The VVSG was a modernized piece that was at the FEC and 

then came over to EAC and I think has continued to become more 

and more innovative. So I would encourage you to look outside the 

box and make sure that you’re doing that. 

And the third point for looking ahead is just working with 

state and local folk and practitioners of elections. That’s where the 

heart this bill was, the heart of HAVA is a practitioner’s bill and the 

354 
 

 

 

 

hours and hours and days and days of meetings that we did with 

the stakeholders and the groups. 

So I look forward to the questions. Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, I’d like to thank all three of the panelists. With that, I’d 

like to give Commissioner Hicks a few moments to talk about his 

reflections and the service on the Commission. And then perhaps, 

as we have Linda Lamone here, and we can start to ask some 

questions. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

Thank you, Commissioner Palmer. 

The only thing I would really add is that, on Monday night, I 

spoke at the Scalia School of Law, and I want you to take that in for 

a second. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

The fact that --

MR. DICKSON: 

Louder. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

It’s right in front of me. Okay. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

355 
 

 

 

So I was saying that on Monday night, I spoke at the Scalia 

School of Law, and I was invited there to hear the students give 

their presentations on the projects that they were working on. And I 

had a reflection on the fact that -- and Pat brought this up -- where 

HAVA passed 357 in the House and 92 to 2 in the Senate. And 

those two senators who voted against it were two Democrats from 

New York, for various regions, but it was --

CHAIRWOMAN MCCORMICK: 

Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

There you go. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

But it was really interesting to me in that we’ve gotten away 

from the fact that we all came together for a common goal of 

improving elections. And now, it’s more of people are in their own 

silos, whether or not that’s black, white, Republican, Democrat, 

East Coast, West Coast, whatever. And we need to get back to the 

fact that in order to get anything accomplished, you have to go 

across that line and talk to other people, because as Hoyer told me 

a few weeks ago when we went in to meet with him, they didn’t get 

everything they wanted out of HAVA. They had to give some things 

up. And people don’t want to give anything up. They want to be 

356 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

able to say I won this, I won that, and that’s not the way that we're 

going to get anything accomplished and how we’re going to get 

anything moving forward. 

So this Board has a unique opportunity, again, to work 

together as you are all from political different backgrounds, different 

ideologies, and so forth, to actually keep improving the agency. 

And I look forward to working with all of you for that very reason. 

You know, I have a unique perspective in that when I was lobbying 

for what became the Help America Vote Act, I worked for Common 

Cause. And then, you know, got called in to interview for the 

position in House Administration the day after my oldest daughter 

was born. Took that job a month later and now she’s almost 20 

years old. And you know, I was only 15. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Nice try. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

And you know, now, looking back as, you know, being a 

Commissioner here at the agency and helping to implement, you 

know, the law itself is really great. 

And so, the other piece that I would say is that there were a 

lot of unique individuals at that point. You know, I think back to 

people who basically became family, like Leslie and Ronnie 

357 
 

 

 

 

 

Gillespie, who was basically like a grandmother to my kids when we 

would go out to dinner at least once a month and just trade, you 

know, stories and things like that. 

And I think that, you know, we’ve lost a lot of good people in 

those 20 years that we’ve seen this act become law. And so, you 

know, as we move forward for the next 20 years, stay in touch with 

folks, and let’s see if we can improve upon it and, you know, 

implement this and see where we can go. 

So that’s it. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you Tom. Open it up for questions? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Any questions of the panelists? Cleta? 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Cleta Mitchell. 

I’m just wondering, looking with your history, and I love 

hearing the story of legislation being made. I don't think it’s like 

sausage. I always love it. But what are the things that you think 

need to be changed? What are the policy decisions that were 

made, are there any particular ones? I just was thinking about the 

question that Eric asked yesterday about that the labs for the 

testing had to be private, for-profit. 

358 
 

 

I’m just wondering if you have gone through and think, we 

wanted to do this but we didn’t get that, or after 20 years, this was 

a mistake, this needs to be tweaked? Because I think we need to 

be looking to the next 20 years, so you’re the best people to ask 

that question. And if you haven’t done that, I’m wondering if there’s 

a way to do that, because I know the Commission is hesitant to go 

to Congress and say, we’d like you to rethink your policy decisions. 

[Laughter] 

MS. MITCHELL: 

But there’s some people who really ought to be thinking, this needs 

to be changed or that needs to be changed. So what would those 

be? 

MR. LEWIS: 

Obviously, I’m out of the business now. I’m 77 years old, 

which means I’m almost old enough to be a poll worker. 

[Laughter] 

MR. LEWIS: 

Where we are in this, look, I think there’s always going to be 

concerns, particularly when it relates to voting equipment, as to 

whether or not so-and-so has access to the voting equipment and 

how that process is done. If the process is not perfect, well, this is 

a resilient deal. We can evolve over that. 

359 
 

 

I will say to you, because no testing process existed 

anywhere in the world except for first what NASED created, and 

then was taken over under the law by the Election Assistance 

Commission, that process has evolved well. It’s taken time. It took 

a long time to get people’s agreement to actually on the first set of 

standards that were out there. And the revision of the standards 

takes a while because it’s not instantaneous. 

The Commission, I think, has adapted well because it moved 

from very prescriptive stuff to very objective-oriented, outcomesoriented, in terms of standards. 

And so, if there’s some concern about the way it’s done, 

that’s up for discussion. But remember that because you feel a 

certain way -- and I’m not talking specifically about you, I’m talking 

about any person who has an idea about how it ought to be done --

if you can’t build a majority to get that done, then you’re probably 

not going to get it done. 

And so, the process under HAVA is not perfect. As all of us 

have learned, we’ve made mistakes along the way, but I’m going to 

say to you, as a bipartisan piece of legislation that actually pumped 

money into the process and listened to elections administrators 

about how to make this work, we didn’t try one size fits all. We 

made it so that each state got to call its own shots in terms of this, 

and it designed a plan to get there, a written plan to get there. 

360 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so, I’m one of those that thinks you rarely live in static 

places. Change is the natural order of things, and so if we need to 

make some changes, we can certainly do that. I mean, 

Commission is perfectly suited to do that, because it’s bipartisan. 

MS. MCLAUGHLIN: 

I’ll give two, and I alluded to them in my remarks earlier, but 

the first one is that it’s time for us to take responsibility. And by us, 

I mean we, as a community, take responsibility for policy choices 

about where the money goes. The per capita block grant approach 

-- and this is happening where, you know, we’re seeing more of a 

dedication of federal funds that are given out being for specific 

purposes, but at a certain point, headcount money doesn’t go very 

far. And if we want to accomplish things at the street level, then we 

need to focus-in on what it is that we, as a community, want to see 

those funds spent on in order to achieve outcomes. 

The second thing I’ll say is that we’ve got to fix the 

Paperwork Reduction Act problem for the EAC. You know, it’s an 

oversight. I’m not aware of anybody who intentionally meant to not 

have the EAC go by the same rules as the FEC Office of Election 

Administration did. And there’s just no reason to make things 

inefficient for them, as an agency. 

MR. LEAHY: 

361 
 

 

 

 

I’ll mention a couple of areas. First, there is a good reason 

why, in 20 years, you’ve only seen a few tweaks to HAVA. I think 

MOVE Act did a few tweaks, but it has stood the test of time. 

Obviously, there are areas of it that could use some adjusting. 

One area that I’ll mention that you’ve heard about quite a bit 

already is the area of non-voting technology. And you know, the 

Commission is doing an ePollbook pilot, which is extremely 

important, and then the idea of expanding that to include, you 

know, ballot-marking systems and other non-voting technology. 

I think that’s really important, and especially on the 

accessibility side, I have played around with some of those 

systems, and accessibility can be mixed on them, so I think that’s 

certainly one area, which is in the broad area of technology, 

because obviously, in 20 years, technology has advanced 

immensely. 

So there would be a few areas I think could be taken a look 

at. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Any other questions? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Jim had a question. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Jim? 

362 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MR. DICKSON: 

It --

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

Louder. 

[Laughter] 

MALE SPEAKER: 

It’s a tough crowd. I’m telling you. 

MR. DICKSON: 

It’s less a question than an observation and a thank you. 

Justin Dart, Jr. was the man who conceived of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, took it from an idea to a law. And he would always 

say to us, it is much easier to pass a law than it is to implement a 

law. And the EAC Commissioners, staff, this Board, the Standards 

Board, the VVSG process have actually implemented the law to a 

degree that constantly amazes and pleases me. 

And I think we do need to spend some time thinking about 

what to do next. Doug used to say all the time, running an election 

is not rocket science. It’s harder --

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

-- because our moving parts are people. And I do think we need to 

spend a fair amount of time figuring out how we can reach the 

small, rural election offices, the new election officials, and get them 

363 
 

 

 

the tools and the processes that can help them do their very, very 

difficult job. 

So thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you. And with that, we’ll wrap up this panel. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We have one more point with --

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

One quick thing. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- Commissioner Hicks. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

I wanted to thank Linda for her years of service on this Board 

and continued service on this Board. 

[Applause] 

MS. LAMONE: 

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS: 

She ran away from the mic, because we were going to ask 

her to say a few words. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, panel, again. Let’s 

thank the panel, first of all. 

364 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

It’s not every day you can have a meeting with your founding 

fathers and mothers, so --

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- this really was something. I’ve learned an awful lot, and I thought 

I new a lot about HAVA. 

Here’sour dilemma. We are running a little bit behind, about 

10 to 15. We have a 15-minute break, and we also have -- so we 

have to choose between being 15 minutes late for ending or cutting 

our break down or eliminating the break, so --

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Eliminate the break. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

-- I’m open to suggestions but --

MR. JOINER: 

Five-minute break. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Keep going? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

365 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five-minute break. All right. We’re going to do a five-minute 

break, and please come back. If you don’t have to leave, that’s 

fine, but we do want to get right back to our final panel. 

[Recess] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We’re now going to start my favorite part of this agenda, 

where I get to be a presenter, and I’ll turn it over to 

Commissioner Palmer. 

NVRA AT 30 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

This last panel is really about, the discussion is more of the 

NVRA at 30, and as we talked about HAVA at 20, we then started 

to think about the National Voter Registration Act at 30. And you 

know, we’d love to hear from the Chair, Greg Moore, and others. 

You know, the NVRA was commonly called the Motor Voter 

Law, and I think most people still see it that way. It’s sort of that 

transaction at the DMV, the driver's license agencies, or other 

public agencies within state government. The four major functions 

or objectives of a law are really informative, and we can draw our 

own conclusions and discussions on those four goals. 

366 
 

 

And I’m just going to read some of them. To establish 

procedures to increase the number of eligible citizens to register to 

vote for federal office. And to make it possible for federal, state, 

and local governments to implement this act in a manner that 

enhances the participation of eligible citizens, to protect the integrity 

of the electoral process, and to ensure that accurate and voter 

registration rules are maintained. 

And so, that is actually, for a federal law, a lot to do. And as 

a practitioner, when I first became aware of the NVRA, it was sort 

of like the rules of the road. There are some difficulties in 

complying and sort of conforming procedures to this, but it sort of 

laid out the major objectives and said go to it within these 

guardrails. 

I think that the importance of it obviously is when you talk 

about accurate lists and increasing voter registration and 

opportunities, those are major goals, and that was really the 

purpose of it. 

I think that one thing -- I’ll just end here -- is that what does 

the EAC do with regards to this? I mean, I think it’s an important 

role, because the Congress passed this law, but it wanted to have 

data that could be provided to it as part of, you know, how is it 

working, what isn’t working, what are statistics about it? And so, 

the EAC EAVS survey, which is the election administration survey, 

367 
 

 

 

we provide the results of that every two years to the Congress in a 

report. And so, we took that responsibility over from the FEC as 

part of the NVRA, and so it’s been a major part of the EAC. It’s a 

major function, and people really look at those statistics closely. 

And so, I think that, you know, moving forward at the NVRA 

30, we at the agency, we hold the federal form. That’s had issues, 

you know, moving forward on that, on certain aspects of it, but I 

think that the surveying of data is vitally important to the agency, 

allowing groups like this to take a look at that, and so what is 

working, what is not, what may need to be tweaked. 

With that, I’m going to turn, really to get more of a history 

about the NVRA and sort of its thoughts going back 30 years and 

the passage of it, to Greg. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Commissioner. 

And again, there’s a lot of people in this room who can add 

or subject from what I’m going to say, and I’m going to ask you to 

do that if you could. But I’m going to do something close to what 

Doug was trying to do and Alysoun and Pat is a little bit of the 

legislative history. I think it’s important because it may help explain 

some of the nuances that we’re dealing with now in terms of how 

we got to where we are. 

368 
 

 

Just my own personal history of it, I worked in the late ’80s 

on presidential campaign, particularly -- well, I can say, I was 

working with the Jesse Jackson campaign, so that’s ’88, so that’s 

how old I am. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But back then, you had to go around the country when you 

worked in the primary, and we were actually in 38 states, so it 

wasn’t like we were tweeting in 38 states; we were going to 38 

states. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And so, my only job in the campaign, which was not a 

campaign job at all, it was just doing the voter registration. And so, 

that was where I learned firsthand how difficult it was in the country 

to register to vote, depending on where you lived. 

And so, doing registration in Louisiana was a lot different 

than doing it in Ohio or Michigan. And we found out the hard way, 

doing rallies and doing these type of events on college campuses --

and I was a student organizer at the time -- was very difficult, and 

the rules were just completely different. 

That’s how I got involved. But there were coalitions around 

that were pushing for different things. In fact, three coalitions. 

369 
 

 

 

One was pushing for same-day voter registration, and that 

was certainly where I was aligned with. The champion for that on 

Capitol Hill was John Conyers. 

Then there was a group of people who were working to try to 

get agency-based registration. There were folks doing voter 

registration in lines for welfare offices and unemployment centers, 

and those were people on like Project Vote and others. They were 

basically trying to say poor people need to be registered, and we 

can’t do it unless we go to where they are. 

The other group was trying to do it through Motor Voter, 

basically taking the model that Bill Monroe had championed in 

Washington State to say let’s use the Motor Vehicle registration 

apparatus to get people to register to vote that way. I think there 

was a model by Secretary of State Bill Austin in Michigan as well 

that was the pioneers or the early start of the Motor Voter concept. 

So those kind of three groups of people were floating 

around, doing their own advocacy. And so in 1989, it was the 

efforts of Congressman Al Swift from Washington State, who just 

happened to be a friend of the Speaker of the House at the time, 

Tom Foley, and it was the Congress effort, which was the H.R. 17, 

which was the Same Day Registration Coalition, which was a pretty 

big coalition at the time. A lot of the advocacy groups who wanted 

370 
 

 

 

 

 

same-day registration, like it was in Minnesota and Maine and a 

few other states, that had a very high registration rate. 

The reason it was a crisis was because it was, at that time, 

barely 50% of the people were turning out and voting. I mean, we 

really had a wider disparity than we have now of people who were 

not registered to vote based on income, based on race. 

And so, those statistics were there. If you were an African 

American or an urban person or a low-income person, your 

registration rates were under 60%, but if you were in a higher 

income level or if you were not one of the people of color, it was a 

70% range. And so, we were trying to close that gap. 

The people who worked on Motor Voter thought, because 

92% of the people in this country had driver's license, and that was 

the most efficient way to do this, and it was an agency that also 

collected data and had photo IDs, and so that was a good way to 

do it. 

But if you look at states, like Wisconsin and others, we knew 

that there were certain people who didn’t have driver's license. The 

State of New York was a perfect example. Many New Yorkers do 

not have driver's license. They didn’t have driver's license there or 

don’t drive cars there, and so there was a less of an incentive, so a 

lot of people were being disenfranchised. So to just pass a Motor 

371 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Voter, by itself, was considered disenfranchising. So many people 

did not support the Motor Voter bill for that reason. 

Those of us who wanted same-day registration thought that 

was the only way to get around the purging that was being done 

and around the inaccessible registrars. You could just show up, 

vote, and we wouldn’t have this problem with all these ways. 

And again, for 30 seconds, to try to get somebody registered 

to vote in Xavier University, Louisiana meant you had to get 

approval from the registrar. They had to approve somebody 

coming out to your site. They sometimes showed up with 25 cards, 

so if you had a rally, you had to fill those 25 cards out. They had to 

take them back to the courthouse, or wherever they were, and then 

you’d have to make another appeal for another 25 cards. It was 

that kind of thing going on. 

That went on for a long time, and the night the first press 

conference to support this new bill was really 1989, when Speaker 

Foley and Swift found a bipartisan partner, Bill Thomas from 

California, to cosponsor this bill. And Al Swift was the Chair of the 

House Administration, the Subcommittee on Elections, which is 

where the Motor Voter bill was originated. And I was, at the time, 

an activist. And we had tried four times to pass that bill. 

Three of the times -- and correct me if I’m wrong, Tim, but I 

think we had problems with getting the 60 votes for the filibuster. 

372 
 

 

 

 

 

So even though there were 57 Democrats in the House, we still 

couldn’t pass it because it was several Democratic Senators who 

didn’t vote for it, who voted with the Republicans for the filibuster. 

So it was a bipartisan block. It wasn’t just, you know, one party 

doing it. And I won’t call their names, but yeah, we had trouble 

getting to 60. 

MALE SPEAKER: 

Go ahead. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

No, we won’t do that. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

They were South of the Mason-Dixon Line, for the most part. 

But the point was that they were good Democrats, but they just 

didn’t like this idea. They weren’t the only ones. There were other 

people in other states that didn’t like it, either, because under our 

analysis, a lot of people could be registered, and we would get 

away from this idea that it was a privilege and not a right to vote. 

And so, we did several votes. Even though we were able to 

get bipartisan support on the House side, there were so many 

things that were done to the bill that made it less desirable for many 

people in the divided community, and one of those things was a list373 
 

 

 

 

 

 

cleaning mechanism that was imposed on the bill by Congressman 

Swift in his compromise with, of all people, Newt Gingrich. But this 

was when he was a Minority Whip. 

So the idea was that there would be a bipartisan bill. It 

would be a bill that we all could agree with in the advocacy world, 

but it would have no chance of passing. And that was our kind of 

dilemma that went on for several years. 

Motor Voter had four bites at the apple. The first vote, we 

got enough votes. We lost at filibuster. I believe the vote was, like, 

56 votes. Another year and a half later, we tried it again. We got to 

59 votes. And then we actually had 60 votes at one time, and 

Senator Specter, our great friend from, where? 

MR. DICKSON: 

Pennsylvania. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Pennsylvania? He was our 60th vote. But he said he would 

be the 61st vote and not the 60th vote. And so, when we had our 59 

votes, he just couldn’t do it, so he was with us for 61. 

So those kind of things happened. So we lost three filibuster 

votes over several years. Mitchell, George Mitchell was our 

Majority leader. 

At the end of the process, there was an election and Bill 

Clinton won and became President in 1992. And so, after losing 

374 
 

 

 

 

 

the filibuster, I should’ve mentioned that the last time we did pass it 

in both Houses and beat the filibuster in 1992, it was vetoed by 

President George W. H. Bush on July 3, I believe, which is one day 

before the country’s birthday. 

Anyway, so we lost three filibuster votes, and we had one 

veto, and so the only way this was ever going to pass was if there 

was a new President, and there was a new President in 1993. And 

so John Conyers, in his great wisdom, hired me, as an activist who 

had been working with the coalition for years, to be his legislative 

director, and I had no experience in Capitol Hill, but he did tell me 

that if I got on his staff, he would let me work on the Motor Voter as 

my number one priority. 

And so, we wanted to do it in the first six months of the 

President’s term, and that’s what we did. But it was only because 

this man sitting next to me worked with coalition partners, including 

the disability community, to help us get over the hump. We did not 

have what we needed, because there was still a split in our 

coalition. A lot of civil rights organizations would not sign-on to a 

bill that had a national list cleaning mechanism that could really 

remove people more than it could actually keep people being 

added to the list by the mechanisms we had to add people, which is 

agency-based registration, postcard registration. 

375 
 

 

 

 

One more thing, and then I’ll turn it over to Jim. When I 

started this in the late ’80s, only 27 states had postcard registration, 

and so if you didn’t have postcard registration in your state, it was 

pretty damn hard to get registered. And so this bill made 50 states 

have one standard form for voter registration, and then states could 

also have their own form. 

But those kinds of reforms were landmark, we thought, and 

we thought they were important enough to pass. It was the first 

major bill that we thought was the most important since the Voting 

Rights Act. 

But Jim can tell us how we actually finally won the bill at the 

end, and then we can go into a couple more thoughts. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Thank you, Greg. 

I have one of the pens that President Clinton used to sign 

the Motor Voter Law. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

I keep it in my sock drawer --

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

376 
 

 

 

 

-- to remind me in the morning that one of the pieces of the law has 

never thoroughly been implemented, and that is the agency-based 

piece. 

As Greg said, poor people of white, black, doesn’t matter 

what color, Native Americans, and people with disabilities at the 

time were drastically under-registered compared to the rest of the 

population. There was a huge gap. 

President Clinton gave that pen to Professor Richard 

Cloward, Columbia School of Social Work. Richard, with his wife, 

Frances Fox Piven, had pushed the idea that if we could get the 

social service agencies that are in contact with poor people to do 

voter registration, we can close the gap. And they tried for about 

six years to get social service agencies, private and public, to 

voluntarily do voter registration. 

At the time, I was working for an organization called Project 

Vote. I’d been thrown out of many public and private social service 

agencies, because I was there, trying to register the consumers to 

vote. 

Now, I know that may seem -- I was once even arrested, you 

know? It was in a food stamp office, and I was there to say, would 

you like to register to vote? And they took me to jail. 

[Laughter] 

MR. RITCHIE: 

377 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. What state? 

MALE SPEAKER: 

Pennsylvania. 

FEMALE SPEAKER: 

Florida. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Pennsylvania. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

Pennsylvania. Minnesota, which is rightfully always very 

proud of their high voter registration and high voter participation 

rates, had Motor Voter, but Senator Packwood, Republican at the 

time, voted three times to not allow Motor Voter to be extended to 

the country. 

The disability community, which was very active in the state, 

met with him and his staff several times and always got a blah, 

blah, blah, we’ll see, but it was basically a no. 

So Senator Packwood, on a Friday morning, had called a 

press conference to announce something that he had put together 

that was good for the state. I don't remember what it was. But the 

disability community, the local folks -- I was still here, in 

Washington, but the local disability community put out a press 

release, announcing that they were going to Senator Packwood’s 

378 
 

 

 

 

 

press conference to announce that he was opposed to people with 

disabilities being registered to vote. 

This concerned Senator Packwood. 

[Laughter] 

MR. DICKSON: 

He canceled the press conference, which was fine with the 

local disability folks, because they got to talk to the press. That 

was a Friday. He came back to D.C. -- I don't remember whether it 

was Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning -- and announced that 

he would be the 60th vote to pass the Motor Voter law, the National 

Voter Registration Act, and we got Senator Specter to be 61. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yeah, and Durenberger. 

MR. DICKSON: 

And Durenberger. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Right. 

MR. DICKSON: 

Yep. So, you know, again, that was about an eight-year 

struggle. The voter registration gap for people with disabilities is 

almost gone. 

The voter participation gap, I’m hopeful the about-to-bereleased Rutgers study, will show that the participation gap, which 

379 
 

 

 

 

 

 

has been only a couple percent, maybe we’ve reduced it, but we 

still have a long way to go, because while we’ve increased the 

participation in general elections of poor, minority, and people with 

disabilities, one of the huge problems that contributes to this awful 

polarization is that most Americans do not vote in primaries. 

Primary voters pretty consistently, it’s about 50% of the 

registered voters. It’s the extremes of both parties. And I don't 

know how we address it, but if we’re going to ever breakdown the 

polarization, we’re going to have to increase voter participation in 

the primaries. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you, Jim. So let me close with this, and we’ll open it 

up, Mr. Commissioner. 

I had a glaring omission. I left out the role of the Rules 

Committee and Senator Wendell Ford from Kentucky, who was 

battling his great friend, Mitch McConnell, on this thing the whole 

time. But also, George Mitchell was from Maine, and he was the 

Majority leader and had 57 votes, but he had same-day registration, 

so to him, this was not a problem. And so, the three of them really 

had a big role. I was speaking from the House side. 

Let me close by saying this. So it took 128 years from the 

adoption of the U.S. Constitution to grant women’s right to vote. It 

380 
 

 

 

 

took 167 years to grant all Americans the right to vote with the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. It took 174 years to grant 18- to 21-

year-olds the right to vote with the 26th Amendment in 1971. And it 

took 197 years for there to be one national standard for registering 

people to vote in the United States. And again, 207 years before 

the Help America Vote Act came around to give a standard for how 

to count votes. 

So this is a long process, a historical process, and it’s just 

something that I thought was important for us to talk about from a 

historical perspective, and it was bipartisan. Again, I’ll just end with 

that. 

The struggle was getting it passed on a bipartisan basis, and 

I’ll always believe that -- and I learned, I didn’t start this way -- if you 

can pass it on a bipartisan basis, you can implement it on a 

bipartisan basis. But if you pass it on a partisan basis, you’re going 

to be stuck in litigation for the rest of your history with this bill. 

So I’ll stop there and turn it back over to the Commissioner. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, thanks. And I alluded a little bit in some of my opening 

comments. I think that the hearing that we had on list maintenance 

was very informative. I was told, when I first got in the business, 

that, you know, Motor Voter was sort of like at the culmination of a 

20-year period of trying to get that bill passed, right? But it was 

381 
 

 

 

very paper-based. And then as we are now more in a digital 

society, it’s becoming more difficult from a registration and from a 

list maintenance perspective. I think online registration is the 

second most used now form of registration. It is often tied to the 

DMV. 

But how do we -- you know, I’ll make this a question, and 

then I know Cleta wanted to weigh-in on some things here. But my 

question for the group is really how do we deal with sort of, you 

know, 30 years after NVRA, in a more digital society, when people 

aren’t using paper as much, but the NVRA, you know, is very 

paper-based? And I’ll just put that out there for conversation. 

Did you want to weigh-in, Cleta? 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Not about paper. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Okay. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Well, go ahead. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Well, I mean, this is really interesting, and I think that the 

objectives of the NVRA, particularly in the voter registration realm, 

382 
 

 

 

 

 

 

they’ve been solitary. They’ve worked, so you should be very 

proud of that. 

I would like to say that my big concern is on the other side of 

the fence, which is list maintenance, and I’m really glad that the 

Commissioner had a hearing about that. I think that there are some 

things that ought to be taken out of the bill, going forward. 

I don't think the federal government should be directing state 

and local governments about when they can and can’t, how they 

can remove bad registrations, when they can remove bad 

registrations. I think that’s broken, and I know that there are 

citizens all over this country who have been spending a lot of time 

doing a lot of pretty amazing work, identifying all the duplications, 

identifying all the dead people, all the, you know, 15 people 

registered at the same residence, none of them live there. 

In a vacuum, maybe that’s not so bad, but when you also 

have jurisdictions that have passed laws that say that everybody on 

the list gets a ballot, not an application, but a ballot, a live ballot, as 

is the case in Nevada, and there are simply huge problems in the 

registration list, that’s a big problem. And people are rightly 

concerned about the state of the nation’s voter rolls. 

So I’m hoping that maybe there can be a bipartisan solution 

to agree that the voter rolls should be accurate. The American 

people think the voter rolls should be accurate. That’s something 

383 
 

 

 

 

that people agree on. The citizens agree on it. Maybe not the 

election community, but the citizens agree on it, that voter rolls 

should be cleaned, and they should be accurate. Cleaned regularly 

and accurate. 

So I think that Congress doesn’t have any business telling 

states when they can remove people, how they can remove people, 

how long they have to stay on even if they’re shown to be, you 

know, two federal election cycles or whatever the number of 

election cycles. I just don’t think that Congress should be -- that is 

a one size that doesn’t fit all, and that’s something that I’m hoping 

that Congress will take into account. I think that’s one of the things 

that needs to be changed. 

And the federal form, federal voter registration form needs to 

have proof of identity and citizenship. You know, it’s a violation of 

federal law for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, and there’s 

really a great concern that the federal form is not sufficient to 

establish that the person who’s registering is actually who they say 

they are. 

So to me, those are just commonsense fixes that Congress 

needs to make and that there’s great consensus among the 

electorate about those things. So those are my thoughts. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

384 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Cleta. Any other comments or questions? Sure, 

Isaac, just briefly, and then we’ll go to John. 

MR. CRAMER: 

For the record, election officials do care about list 

maintenance and accurate voter rolls. That is actually the number 

one, top priority, and to suggest otherwise would be incorrect, 

because I know, for a fact, that we want to follow the laws of our 

states, the federal laws. We swear to uphold that. We all took 

even an oath here, so I think the common sense is -- and we all 

agree on that issue. 

And I think the greater issue is how do you make that work 

across 50 states. And that’s going to be the million-dollar question, 

a million-dollar answer, and whoever can do that will be very 

wealthy who can come up with the golden ticket for list 

maintenance across 50 states. 

I’m going to tell you that, yes. Is there a problem? Yeah. 

But there are solutions, but people are leaving those solutions, and 

the states don’t talk to each other. I live in South Carolina, and my 

neighbors to the north don’t participate in sharing agreements. 

So we have bigger issues that even states that neighbor 

each other can’t agree on how to do list maintenance together. 

And there’s a lot of moving between South Carolina and 

North Carolina and going to Florida. 

385 
 

 

 

 

So I think that we when we look at, federally, what can be 

done, there are solutions, but the problem is, it’s not going to make 

people happy when you propose federal legislation that’s going to 

oversee election administration across 50 states. So I think the 

avenues are there. It’s just going to be a hard sell to, you know, 50 

states about, hey, we’re going to have you all part of a program that 

tracks voter registration, and I think that’s going to get a big no from 

a lot of people. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

So until that answer’s there, I would say everybody here 

wants correct voter rolls. We 100% do. When I get an e-mail of 

concern, I don’t ignore that e-mail. The problem is you can’t just 

remove people because somebody knocked on a door. There’s a 

lot more that goes into that. 

Also, not everybody’s honest, and that’s on both sides of the 

aisle. 

[Laughter] 

MR. CRAMER: 

It doesn’t matter who you are. On both sides of the aisle, 

you have people who do lie, and they will tell you something. 

They’ll say, I signed an affidavit, but that doesn’t mean that you can 

386 
 

 

 

trust them, because for one, people can be intimidated by those 

tactics. 

We got calls in Charleston County for groups going door to 

door, knocking, and posing as election officials when they were not 

election officials. So we have to do a really good job in any 

approach we do, because this is not just a small issue. It’s a major 

issue, and you have to deal with a lot of different segments of the 

population. You have rural, urban. You have people that don’t 

have access. You have people that don’t have transportation. And 

you have people that may actually have a lot of people live at that 

address because of generational things. 

So you’ve got to be cognizant of all the different things that 

go on into elections. So I really love this conversation about list 

maintenance. It’s one that I want to see done, but the problem is 

we have such a polarization right now around this subject that I 

don't know if we can actually solve it without everybody say, well, 

that’s not doing it the right way, because you’re going to have to 

have compromise. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

So I’ll take the moderator’s privilege here and just ask you a 

question. You know, what do you need in Charleston? What would 

you need, as a local election official? I mean, you know, there are 

some discussions on statewide -- I mean nationwide organizations 

387 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that you alluded to, but what do you need at the local level to make 

your rolls cleaner? 

MR. CRAMER: 

I mean, I think there’s just so much variance from state to 

state, you know. What you do in one state, we don’t do in South 

Carolina. I know that some states do the national change of 

address, NCOA, with U.S. Postal Service. There are resources 

that are there that could help, that there’s federal parameters 

around. I mean, the U.S. Post Office, I’m going to say this, people 

change their address with the post office. They change their 

address at the DMV. They change their address for tax purposes. 

We have information available. 

The problem is we’re in government, and you have a million 

different agencies that don’t talk to each other. They don’t. And 

honestly, it’s a lot of egos. So if you could have somebody who 

comes in and helps mitigate that or compromise is seen, where you 

have a table like this, where you have state leaders of agencies 

and federal agencies come together and not just a bunch of thinktanks talking about it. You actually have the people who implement 

it in the room. You could actually see positive change. Because 

honestly, where the one-size-fits-all doesn’t work. I agree with that. 

But at the same time, we need to have some overarching 

framework for how we do this. It’s not possible without that. 

388 
 

 

MS. MITCHELL: 

Could I respond to something? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Just briefly. Then we need to move onto John. He had a 

question. 

MS. MITCHELL: 

I’m suggesting that what needs to be done is that Congress 

needs to repeal some of the restrictions that are currently in the 

NVRA that keep states and localities from deciding what they’re 

going to do on list maintenance. 

By the same token, some of the most important data that is 

available, that should be available, are federal databases. The 

Social Security death database, the SAVE database at DHS, the 

U.S. Postal Office, USPS databases, not just NCOA, but also the 

database on vacancies and the types of properties. Those are all 

federal databases that, in my mind, Congress needs to direct that 

those be made available for free, on a regular basis, to state and 

local election offices, because having that data available without 

having to go search it out yourselves, I think, would be very helpful. 

I’m very much opposed to some federal mandate. I think the 

mandates that are in NVRA and the restrictions need to be lifted, to 

let the local state governments decide how they best want to 

conduct list maintenance. 

389 
 

 

 

 

 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Yeah, so Greg and then Joseph Gloria. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Just some clarification, not directed to your point, but two 

things --

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

I’m sorry. John just waved me off, so --

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. This is going to be real quick. The two things that we 

stressed in the bill were uniformity and non-discriminatory. That 

was driving the whole process. We thought there was a need for 

uniformity around list maintenance. I know in Chicago, you could 

get (inaudible) every six months back in the 1990s, because that’s 

how often they did it. In some states, they did it hardly ever. I 

mean, there was always different states doing different things. The 

idea was to make it uniform. 

I think where we err, and others in this room can attest to it, 

we were afraid to put any funding in NVRA because of the fear that 

it would be defunded by any Congress that came back after it was 

passed. And so it was a horrific mistake. I didn’t see this problem, 

until I saw it in real life after the bill was passed many years later, 

that (inaudible) states and counties were left to pay all those bills to 

do all the stuff you’re talking about, and because there was no 

390 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

funding, there was a big, big, big controversy on whether or not to 

make this a funded or unfunded mandate, and it was an unfunded 

mandate. And that’s hurt our ability, and it also led to all kinds of 

litigation. 

So had HAVA not happen, had we not have money that 

came in from the Help America Vote Act, a lot of this stuff would 

have been impossible to continue to do. So HAVA actually was a 

corrective measure, in my eyes, to some of the things we were not 

able to get done through the NVRA through the 

Help America Vote Act. I just thought I’d throw that out. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Thank you. Joe and then I think, Jenny, you had your hand 

up. 

MR. GLORIA: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say that I appreciate the comments from Mr. 

Cramer, and I want to emphasize, being an election official from the 

State of Nevada, we emphasize the maintenance of the rolls at the 

state and the local level, and we followed all federal and state law. 

And following those laws requires us to make sure that we’re 

protecting those voters from becoming unknowingly 

disenfranchised by canceling them. 

391 
 

 

 

 

 

And so, I would caution anybody who feels that or calls them 

restrictions from the federal level. Those protections were put in 

place to protect the voter. And we can go into a long debate on 

whether they’re too extreme; however, we did follow the law in the 

State of Nevada, and we had a very effective program. We were 

members of ERIC, and a matter of fact, we were one of the original 

members in the ERIC comparison from state to state. And I’m 

disappointed that there are some jurisdictions that are moving away 

from it, because that was the solution. And we looked forward to 

the day when we would have all 50 states sharing that information. 

And so, I just have to say that, in the State of Nevada, we 

were very proud of the fact that we did proper list maintenance, and 

we worked with the state and ERIC to make sure that we were 

doing that according to the law. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

Ms. Carroll. 

MS. CARROLL: 

So I’ll be brief. So I agree with what you just said, Mr. 

Gloria, as well as what Mr. Moore said. And I share the concerns 

that Isaac raised regarding how different election officials have to 

deal with this. 

One thing that I would just add to that is I have seen, in 

Alabama, people who have been removed from voter rolls, who 

392 
 

 

 

 

show up to vote and learn for the first time that they have been 

removed. They are then required, under state law, to cast 

provisional ballots, which they have seven days to perfect. For 

many people, that’s an insurmountable burden. And again, I think 

it’s thinking about the right to vote as a privilege rather than a right. 

And so, I think there is a value to federalizing this. I am from 

a jurisdiction that has decided not to rely on ERIC. At the same 

time, our Secretary of State has raised the issue that she is 

concerned about inaccuracy in voter rolls. And it just seems like 

you can’t have it both ways. 

I would also add that, in states like mine, where it is a oneparty state, relying on state legislators to necessarily hear the 

concerns of minority and underrepresented populations can be 

challenging. And so, I think there is a value to having a federalized 

system. And I would emphasize that in Alabama that does have a 

voter ID law, has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, 

our Governor made a decision to close many of the MVDs in rural 

areas, which was the primary source of that ID. And that was a 

state government decision. And when you have 11 out of 13 

majority minority counties where the MVD is closed or has limited 

hours, you are limiting the ability of citizens to participate in their 

right to vote. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

393 
 

 

 

 

 

Okay. I am the bearer of bad news. That is the end of our 

session. 

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

This is a great session. I really appreciated this. I do 

encourage you, each of you, to go to the list maintenance hearing. 

I think you’ll hear from election officials and experts. And the 

reason I pointed the Chair to that is it talked about some of the 

challenges that election officials have and what tools they need and 

some ways that maybe technology could overcome some of the 

challenges. 

So I am the bearer of bad news. That’s the end of this 

session. And with that, I’ll turn it back to the Chair, Mr. Moore, for 

any closing discussion and announcements. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Well, first of all, thank you, all, for that. I know we just 

touched the tip of the iceberg, and there’s more to come on that 

instance. But look at the video. I think you’ll get a lot out of it. And 

that conversation needs to be continued. I won’t do it here. I’m so 

tempted, but I won’t. I’ll stop. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

394 
 

 

 

 

 

Let me do a couple things. One is that -- did Mark leave 

already? Okay. Mark had to leave -- he expressed his apologies --

for another meeting. Did you want to say anything before we get 

out of here? 

First of all, as a big thank you, I have a list of staff here. I 

thought it was about six or seven. There’s actually 17 people on 

this list. But the fact that the staff went from Phoenix, doing the 

Standards meeting, to doing us right back-to-back, some of them 

didn’t get a chance to unpack even, is a remarkable feat. I know 

they can’t wait until the hearing is over this afternoon. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But I want us to just thank them for all they’ve done. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Number two, the hearing that we have, Scott, do you want to 

say anything about the hearing that we have coming up? 

MR. WIEDMANN: 

Just appreciate the exposure for the military and overseas 

voters and look forward to seeing you there. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Okay. Great. Is there --

MS. IBANEZ: 

395 
 

 

 

 

 

Can I ask, is that afternoon meeting public, open to the 

general public? 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Yes. 

MS. IBANEZ: 

Perfect. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Please. Yeah. It’s actually in the EAC hearing room, which I 

haven’t ever been to that one. I’m looking forward to going. 

So let me do this in my closing remarks. I’ve said everything 

I probably can say at this meeting, and it’s time to go, but you 

know, this agency -- and some of you know this about me. I was 

an avid supporter of this agency and actually served on the 

Advisory Board when it wasn’t even meeting, because we didn’t 

have a quorum. 

But there are two people in this room who actually deserve 

some extra credit and appreciation, and that’s our Chair and our 

former Chair, both Tom Hicks and Christy. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

‘Doug’. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

396 
 

 

No, I’ve said Christy McNichols several times. I didn’t want 

to do it, and I’ve said Doug several times, so I apologize for that. 

They were around when this agency only had a couple 

million dollars in the bank, and they could’ve easily walked out of 

here and said, look, I’m going to get another job, or my family has 

obligations. And I remember when it was just the two of them, and 

because they stayed at this agency, I think that’s why it’s around 

today. So I want to thank both of them for giving us everything they 

had. 

[Applause] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And I’ve chatted with a lot of them over the years, and I just 

want to thank them, because we believed one day we could save 

this agency, those of us who were not on it but supported it, and 

because you stayed and because we got Doug and -- because we 

got Don, and --

[Laughter] 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

It’s ‘Don’ Lewis, just for the record. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

‘Don’ Lewis. And because we got Ben, I think we really kept 

this going, so I’m very, very proud and happy, and I’m looking 

397 
 

 

 

forward to getting together next year. We do need to chat in the 

next few weeks about the upcoming meeting in 2024. There are 

four Committees that are going to be appointed over the next 

several months. We’re going to meet as Executive Committee 

between now and the end of the summer, but it’s the VVSG 

Committee, the Bylaws Committee, the Resolutions Committee, 

and I believe the -- is there another one -- Elections Committee. I 

guess we should have one of those before our next meeting as 

well. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

We won’t put Linda through this again. But those 

Committees are going to -- so if you have an interest in one of 

those Committees, we do want to chat with you or have some 

discussions over the next few weeks. There’s a NASS meeting 

taking place here in Washington. Do you want to make a 

commercial announcement about that? 

MS. REYNOLDS: 

Sure, we’re going to be in D.C. July 12 at the Grand Hiatt --

I’m sorry, July 9 through 12. We’d love to have you register and 

come. It’s, you know, elections talk and remote notarization, 

business filings. It’s very exciting. 

[Laughter] 

398 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

And it’s a lot more fun than it was when we were going to try 

to save the agency, because that’s what we used to go there, to try 

to stop the resolutions that would ask for this abolishment of this 

Commission. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

So that’s not happening anymore, right? 

MS. REYNOLDS: 

That resolution sunsetted. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you. So that was a long sunset. I have to tell you. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

But on behalf of all those --

MALE SPEAKER: 

It’s called deprecation. 

[Laughter] 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Thank you for coming. Can I have a motion to adjourn the --

I’m sorry. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER: 

399 
 

 

 

Last thing. This is the address that you put into your Uber 

request. 633 3rd Street Northwest. That’s our building. And we’ll 

get you in one way or the other. So that’s what you put into the 

Uber. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

All right. And I know a lot of you have cars parked here, and 

I know Uber or either cabs still work, but I do need to entertain a 

motion to adjourn the meeting. Is there a motion? 

MR. FOGARTY: 

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

Is there a second? 

MR. STARK: 

Second. 

CHAIRMAN MOORE: 

The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you, all, so much. 

[Applause] 

[The Board of Advisors 2023 Annual Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission adjourned at 10:58 a.m.] 

400 
401