U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

633 3rd St. NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001 

The EAC received multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for the following:

For both VSTLs Pro V&V, as well as SLI Compliance (and under their previous names) -

please provide: 

1) From 2016 thru December 2020 - all original emails, with official EAC-issued 

(unedited) Certificate of Accreditation as attachment to both listed VSTLs 

2) From 2016 thru December 2020 -all original (unedited) EAC-issued Certificate of 

Accreditation for the listed VSTLs 

3) From 2016 thru December 2020 - all EAC commissioner meeting minutes, where 

VSTL accreditation was discussed 

4) From 2016 thru December 2020 - all applications for accreditation renewal or 

supplemental information the VSTLs provided to the EAC

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(D)(ii)(II), the EAC is making the following records available 

for public inspection in an electronic format.


From: Lesley Hoppert<

Sent on: Friday, May 19, 2017 7:21:29 PM

To: Brian Hancock<BHancock@eac.gov>

CC: Ryan Macias<RMacias@eac.gov>; Traci Mapps

Subject: SLI Compliance 2017 EAC Application

Attachments: 1. EAC 2017_ Section 1-Information and Documents.pdf (180.82 KB), 3.4.1.08-09 Evidence of

Insurance.pdf (17.81 KB), 3.4.1.11 SLI Compliance VSTL Org 2017-03.pdf (238.08 KB),

3.4.1.12a SLI Statements of Ethics and Independence.pdf (136.85 KB), 3.4.1.12b SLP-QS-13

Control of Conflicts of Interest.pdf (100.82 KB), 3.4.1.12c

VSTL_Lab_Independ_Policy_Acknowledgement.pdf (28.86 KB), 3.4.1.12d

VSTL_Confidential_Financial_Disclosure_Form.pdf (166.02 KB), 3.4.1.13 Employee

Background Investigation Procedure WI-LG-046.pdf (358.79 KB), 3.4.1.14 SLP-VC-22

Archiving.pdf (101.48 KB), 3.4.2 EAC VSTL Letter of Agreement 2017.pdf (80.29 KB)

Hello, Brian,

Our 2017 application files are attached. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Best Regards,

Lesley Hoppert

Quality Systems Controller

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge Colorado 80033

Web: www.slicompliance.com

“A Division of GLI LLC”

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1‐1 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

Section 1. Information and Documents

1. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS 

(EAC LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM MANUAL 3.4.1.) 

The applicant laboratory must submit the information and documents indentified in section 3.4.1 as part of its 

application. 

The items below (as provided or referenced as attachments) address the information

requested by the EAC for review prior to issuing an accreditation.

1.1 Legal Name of the Laboratory (section 3.4.1.1) 

SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC

1.2 Mailing Address of the Laboratory (section 3.4.1.2) 

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  

1.3 Physical Location of Laboratory (section 3.4.1.3) 

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  

1.4 Voting System Testing Program Contact Information (section 3.4.1.4) 

Traci Mapps, Director of Operations  

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  

1.5 President or CEO Contact Information (section 3.4.1.5) 

James Maida, President and CEO

Gaming Laboratories International

600 Airport Road

(b) (6)
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1‐2 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

Section 1. Information and Documents

Lakewood, New Jersey 08701

1.6 Laboratory Contacts per Section 2.13 of EAC Manual (section 3.4.1.6) 

Name, phone number, fax number and email address of the individual or individuals designated to speak for 

and take action on behalf of the laboratory pursuant to Section 2.13 of this manual 

Traci Mapps, Director of Operations  

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  

1.7 Business Contact (section 3.4.1.7) 

The business contact information (such as point of contact, address, Web site, e-mail address) to be posted by 

the EAC on its Web site. 

Traci Mapps, Director of Operations  

SLI Compliance

4720 Independence St.

Wheat Ridge, CO  80033  

SLI Compliance website:

www.slicompliance.com

1.8 Insurance Requirements (Sections 3.4.1.8 – 3.4.1.10) 

The identity of the laboratory’s insurer(s), name of insured, and coverage limits for any comprehensive general 

liability policies, errors and omissions policies, professional liability policies and bailee policies. A written 

assessment of the laboratory’s commercial general liability. The laboratory shall provide a signed statement 

certifying that it maintains workman’s compensation policy coverage sufficient to meet the applicable state’s 

minimum requirements. 

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1‐3 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

Section 1. Information and Documents

Please see attached GLI’s certificate of insurance which meets the insurance requirements

of the US EAC VSTL application.  

SLI also certifies that we maintain worker’s compensation policy coverage that meets the

State of Colorado’s minimum requirements.

Signed:  

Name:  Traci Mapps

Title:  Director of Operations  

1.9 Laboratory Organizational Chart (section 3.4.1.11) 

A copy of the complete laboratory organizational chart which includes the names of all individuals responsible 

for the testing of voting systems. 

Please see the attached SLI VSTL organizational chart.

1.10 Laboratory Conflict of Interest Policy (section 3.4.1.12) 

A copy of the laboratory’s conflict of interest policy which implements the standards of Section 2.5 of EAC 

manual. 

Please see attached policies:  

 SLI Compliance Statements of Ethics and Independence

 SLP‐QS‐13 Control of Conflicts of Interest

 SLI Compliance VSTL Lab Independence Policy Acknowledgement Form  

 SLI Compliance VSTL Confidential Financial Disclosure Form

1.11 Laboratory Personnel Policy (section 3.4.1.13) 

A copy of the laboratory’s personnel policy which implements the standards of Section 2.6 of EAC manual. 

Please see attached GLI policy Employee Background Investigation Procedure. In

particular, please reference Page 13, the table titled BACKGROUND CHECK LIMITATIONS

FOR ALL US EMPLOYEES.  

1.12 Laboratory Recordkeeping Policy (section 3.4.1.14) 

A copy of the laboratory’s recordkeeping policy which implements the standards of Section 2.15 of EAC 

manual. 

Please see attached policies:
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1‐4 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

Section 1. Information and Documents

 SLI Compliance Record Keeping Policy:

 SLP‐VC‐ 22 Archiving Voting Test Materials   

1.13 Laboratory Facility Brochure (section 3.4.1.15) 

A copy of the laboratory facilities brochure 

In lieu of a facilities brochure, please see the following lab description, which was included

in SLI’s NVLAP application in 2016 for 2017:

SLI Compliance maintains and operates its Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) within

the Gaming Laboratories International Colorado office and does not currently maintain

nor operate any remote sites or mobile units.  VSTL operations are located at this address:

Gaming Laboratories International (GLI)

4720 Independence Street

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

The offices at GLI are located on the first floor of a 2‐story office building with a typical

office build‐out environment.  SLI space on the 1st floor of the GLI building totals about

4,000 square feet.  All entrances to the building are equipped with keycard access denial

systems.   All workstations are controlled using password access. Test artifacts are

maintained on SLI’s internal Voting server with access restricted to designated test and

management staff. Voting system testing is conducted in test lab rooms. Each test lab

room has a single entry that is also equipped with an access denial door lock, with access

restricted to designated test and management staff.  

SLI’s VSTL performs electronic voting system certification activities per requirements

drawn from current versions of these standards:

 NIST Handbook 150 and ISO 17025

 NIST Handbook 150‐22

 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 2005 and VVSG 1.1 2015)

VSTL voting system certification test campaigns do not require any specialized test

equipment.   Any hardware tests required for such test campaigns are situated at VSTL

approved, accredited hardware test lab facilities and are overseen by an SLI hardware test

specialist.

1.14 Laboratory Annual Report and Board of Directors (section 3.4.1.16) 

A copy of the most recent annual report, the names of the current board of directors and the previous year’s 

board of directors, the names of any majority shareholders, and audited financial statements of the companies 
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1‐5 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

Section 1. Information and Documents

or entities that own and operate the laboratory. Laboratories not incorporated should provide comparable 

information 

As a privately held corporation, SLI Compliance and GLI do not produce an Annual Report

to shareholders.  Therefore, no Annual Report is included with this application.  SLI would

be happy to provide any specific information required by the EAC to satisfy this

requirement.

Audited financial statements are available upon request through the following contact:

Bruce A. Hecht  

Chief Financial Officer  

Gaming Laboratories International  

600 Airport Road  

Lakewood, NJ 08701

Majority shareholders are James Maida and Paul Magno.

Below, please find an account of SLI’s present and previous year’s Board of Directors.

2016, 2017  

As a division of Gaming Labs International, we do not have an outside board.

(b) (6)


SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 1 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

SLI Compliance Statements of Ethics and Independence 

These statements from the SLI Compliance Quality System Manual address ethics and

independence.

1.1 Voting Test Statement 

SLI Compliance is governed by the following Voting Test Statement for all voting test work

as authorized by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC):

In regards to all test‐engineering activities performed as a VSTL, SLI Compliance, all

employees of SLI Compliance, and SLI Compliance’s testing subcontractors and their

employees shall remain mindful of the following priorities:

PUBLIC INTEREST in a voting system that is accurate, reliable, maintainable, usable, 

secure, and meets all applicable standards for voting systems 

QUALITY, COMPREHENSIVENESS, INTEGRITY, and OBJECTIVITY in Voting System Test 

Engineering activities and a continuous effort to monitor and improve quality 

SECURITY of the testing environment, equipment, and materials as well as 

adherence to contracts and agreements with clients 

AUTHORITY of the EAC in Voting System Certification and consistency among 

Voting System Test Laboratories 

Throughout voting test activities, all employees of SLI Compliance and its testing

subcontractors shall actively search for issues or problems that might jeopardize the

integrity of testing or put any voting in an election at risk. If an employee encounters such

an issue, the employee must immediately report said issue to a Manager. The issue will

then be investigated and defined by the Project Team and summarily reported by the Test

Manager, Director of Operations, and/or Quality Assurance Manager, who will follow

through to ensure that the issue has been resolved.

1.2 Statement of Independence 

The management and staff of SLI Compliance and its testing subcontractors and their

employees shall maintain an independent decisional relationship between SLI Compliance

and its testing subcontractors and SLI’s clients, affiliates, or other organizations so that the

Laboratory’s capacity to render test reports objectively and without bias is not adversely

affected.

SLI Compliance and its testing subcontractors and their employees shall maintain

independence from Voting System Manufacturing clients whose systems are under VSTL
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 2 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

test or are scheduled for a VSTL voting system test campaign. Specifically, employees shall

not have a direct beneficial interest in a voting system product.

As a VSTL, SLI Compliance will not perform engineering development work on voting

systems and will not perform both developmental testing and accredited (national

certification) testing of a particular voting system or system component.

The Test Laboratory, whether on‐site at SLI Compliance or at its testing subcontractor’s

facility or at a client’s site, shall be organized so that staff members are not subjected to

undue pressure or inducement that might influence their judgment or the results of their

work.

In connection with the requirements of Sections 2.5 and 2.19 of the EAC VSTL

Accreditation Program Manual, it is essential that all staff involved in any way with voting

systems Manufacturers avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest in all verbal and

written communications with voting system Manufacturers, and their employees, officers,

agents and representatives. Statements to any person who is not a member of SLI’s

management or the SLI testing team working on a particular testing project that may be

understood as predicting or anticipating any testing results, whether general or specific,

express or implied are prohibited.  

All employees or contractors of SLI Compliance involved in the testing of voting systems

are required to attend SLI’s Laboratory Independence Training and sign the SLI Laboratory

Independence Policy Acknowledgement form when hired and annually thereafter.  The

form can be found on the SLI SharePoint VSTL – Federal site.  Hard copies of signed forms

are kept in the employee’s VSTL personnel file.  

See also SLP‐QS‐13 ‐ Control of Conflicts of Interest.

1.3 Management Commitment 

SLI Compliance Management is thoroughly committed to a policy of following a

systematic set of processes and procedures to ensure effective and efficient completion

of all voting system test campaigns. It is the responsibility of the Management team to

ensure that all voting system test campaigns are planned, executed, and completed

following ISO 17025 and NIST Handbooks HB‐150 and HB‐150‐22, the EAC Testing and

Certification Program Manual and the EAC VSTL Accreditation Program Manual as well as

SLI’s Standard Lab Procedures and that, if and when required, the appropriate actions

take place to cover all unexpected circumstances. SLI’s statement of Management

Commitment:  

The MANAGEMENT TEAM of SLI Compliance is COMMITTED TO ENSURING:

 that all test campaigns are carried out following SLI Compliance’s repeatable SLPs  
SLI‐17‐CP‐EAC‐APP‐004 Page 3 EAC Application 2017

US Election Assistance Commission

VSTL Annual Accreditation

Application Renewal 2017

 that all test campaigns employ the most effective and efficient communication to all

parties involved and that all communications are tracked to ensure adherence to

procedures and standards

 that all test campaigns are governed by a process of continuous improvement for all

quality management procedures and SLPs

 that the appropriate resources are made available to continue to develop and improve

the Quality System Processes and associated QSM

 that when changes to the management system are planned and implemented, the

integrity of the management system is maintained – this includes ensuring that key

management positions are filled by qualified individuals; that applicable governing

requirements are fulfilled in the Quality System; and that Quality System policies and

processes are followed in all VSTL test campaign activities

 that appropriate communication processes are established within the laboratory and

that communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the management

system

 that training is both available and provided to SLI Compliance staff

 that the processes for both internal and external audits are supported with personnel

resources, time and budgets

 that at no time will SLI violate its statement of independence by engaging in any

activity that would place the company and/or its employees in a compromising

position or in a position of conflict of interest

 that the goal of all test campaigns is first and foremost to demonstrate whether or not

a voting system:

o meets the applicable version of the Voting System Guidelines

o meets the voting system manufacturer’s requirements.

 that SLI Compliance recognizes and understands that its commitment and obligation is

to the Election Assistance Commission and ultimately the citizens of the United States

in carrying out our part to ensure that voting systems certified for use in elections

within the United States are reliable, accurate, secure, usable and meet all applicable

voting system standards.
Ver. 1.4, 1/7/2016 Page | 1 

Laboratory Independence Policy 

Acknowledgement Form 

SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC 

The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) created the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) and assigned the EAC the responsibility for the testing and 

certification of voting systems. The procedural requirements for the EAC’s laboratory 

accreditation program are specified in the US EAC Voting System Test Laboratory 

Program Manual (EAC VSTL Manual). Key requirements in this manual include 

prohibition of conflicts of interest (Section 2.5) and provisions regarding Laboratory 

independence from manufacturers of voting systems (Section 2.19). Specifically, Section 

2.5 of the EAC VSTL Manual states: 

“As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories must maintain and enforce policies which 

prohibit and prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest. A 

laboratory shall ensure that neither the Laboratory, its parent corporation, contracted 

third party laboratories, nor any individual staff member involved in the testing of voting 

systems have any vested interest in the outcome of the test process. Laboratories must 

have a written policy in place. This policy must, at a minimum, (1) prohibit conflicts of 

interest and other prohibited practices and (2) provide for enforcement, consistent with 

the subsections below.” 

Section 2.19 of the EAC VSTL Manual states: 

“As a condition of accreditation, all laboratories shall maintain their independence from 

voting systems Manufacturers, consistent with their roles and responsibilities as a key 

component of the EAC Certification program. VSTLs shall maintain an arm’s length 

relationship with the Manufacturers and avoid even the appearance of improper 

conduct.” 

Specific requirements with respect to the required independence are set forth in the full 

text of Sections 2.5 and 2.19 of the EAC VSTL Manual. 

As an employee or contractor of SLI Compliance involved in the testing of voting 

systems, you are required to be familiar with the EAC VSTL Manual, including without 

limitation the requirements of Sections 2.5 and 2.19, and to comply with those 

requirements. Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the EAC VSTL 

Manual or any other policies or procedures of SLI Compliance applicable to your work 

will result in disciplinary actions, which may include termination of your employment or 

termination for breach of your contract with SLI Compliance. The full text of SLI 

Compliance’s current policies and procedures applicable to voting systems testing are 

contained in the SLI Compliance VSTL Quality System Manual (QSM). Copies of the 

EAC VSTL Manual and the QSM are located in the Quality System. 
Ver. 1.4, 1/7/2016 Page | 2 

In connection with the requirements of Sections 2.5 and 2.19 of the EAC VSTL Manual, 

it is essential that all staff involved in any way with voting systems Manufacturers avoid 

even the appearance of conflict of interest in all verbal and written communications with 

voting system Manufacturers, and their employees, officers, agents and representatives. 

Statements to any person who is not a member of SLI Compliance management or the 

SLI Compliance testing team working on a particular testing project that may be 

understood as predicting or anticipating any testing results, whether general or specific, 

express or implied are prohibited. Substantial discussions with a manufacturer 

concerning testing shall be recorded per SLP-VC-03 Communication with 

Manufacturers. 

By signing below you confirm that (i) you have completed the SLI Compliance 

Laboratory Independence Training and understand the requirements of Section 2.5 and 

2.19 of the EAC VSTL Manual; (ii) you have read and understand the contents of the 

EAC VSTL Manual and the QSM; (iii) you agree to comply with the requirements set 

forth in the EAC VSTL Manual and the QSM, as revised from time to time; and (iv) you 

understand that any violations of the requirements set forth in the EAC VSTL Manual or 

the QSM will result in disciplinary action, including termination of employment or your 

contract in appropriate circumstances. 

THE UNDERSIGNED EMPLOYEE/CONTRACTOR confirms each of the statements set 

forth in the foregoing paragraphs and agrees to comply with the policies and 

requirements applicable to voting systems testing work performed for SLI Compliance.

_______________________________________ ___________________ 

Employee Signature Date 

_______________________________________ 

Employee Printed Name 

To be completed by the Trainer, Supervisor, or HR: 

Laboratory Independence Training was completed. 

 

_______________________________________ ___________________ 

Trainer/HR/Supervisor Signature Date 

_______________________________________ 

Trainer/HR/Supervisor Printed Name 
Version 1.7 Page 1 1/9/2017 

CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM

Employee’s Name (Last, first, middle initial): Position/Title: Reporting Status:

[   ] New Employee

[   ] Annual Report

Date of Hire: Home Address:

Privacy Act Statement

The primary use of the information on this form is for review by SLI Compliance, a division of

Gaming Laboratories International, LLC (referred to herein as “Company”) to determine

compliance with applicable government policies and regulations and to avoid actual or potential

conflicts of interest affecting your independent judgment in connection with voting systems

certification testing or other voting system test work performed by the Company.  Disclosures of

the information on this report may be required: (1) to a customer of the Company or to a Federal,

State or local law enforcement agency if the Company becomes aware of a violation or potential

violation of law or regulation; (2) to a court or party in a court or governmental administrative

proceeding if the Company is a party or in order to comply with a subpoena; (3) to a source when

necessary to obtain information relevant to a conflict of interest investigation or decision; (4) to

prime contractors or governmental agencies if required in records management inspections; or (5)

in response to a request for discovery or for the appearance of a witness in a judicial or

administrative proceeding, if the information is relevant to the subject matter.   The Company will

hold the information reported on this form as confidential except for disclosure in the

circumstances detailed above or as may be determined by the Company to be reasonably required

in connection with the Company’s business.   

Penalties

Falsification of information or failure to file or report information required to be reported may

subject you to disciplinary action by the Company, which may include, but not limited to,

termination of employment. Knowing and willful falsification of information required to be

reported may also subject you to civil or criminal prosecution.

Part I:  Investments and other Financial Relationships

NOTE: Ownership of stocks in voting system companies must be disclosed. However,

mutual funds investment is allowed even though there may be a possibility of voting

system company stocks present, which is out of the direct control of the employee;

mutual funds investment need not be listed below.

List below for yourself, your spouse and your dependent children (i) any direct or indirect

ownership interest held currently or in the past twelve months in any supplier of voting systems

software or hardware or any of the hardware test laboratories specified below, including without

limitation any ownership interest in any of the companies listed below (including their parent

companies, subsidiaries or affiliates) (referred to herein as “Voting Systems Industry Companies”);
Version 1.7 Page 2 1/9/2017 

and (ii) any other financial relationship with any Voting Systems Industry Company, including

without limitation any employment relationship, loans or other benefits received:

 Avante International Technology, Inc.

 Clear Ballot Group, Inc.

 Democracy Live, Inc.

 Dominion Voting Systems Corporation

 ELECTEC Election Services, Inc.

 Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)

 Everyone Counts, Inc.

 Hart InterCivic, Inc.  

 MicroVote General Corporation

 N.V. Nederlansche Apparatenfabriek "Nedap"

 Open Source Digital Voting Foundation

 Populex Corporation

 Precise Voting, LLC

 Premier Election Solutions, Inc.

 Smartmatic USA

 SOE Software, a Scytl Company

 TruVote International

 UniLect Corporation

 Unisyn Voting Solutions (A division of International Lottery and Totalizator, Inc.)

 VotRite

Hardware Test Laboratories:

 Element Materials Technology Denver (formerly Cascade Technical Sciences)

 NTS Longmont (formerly EMC Integrity Inc.)

 Nebraska Center for Excellence in Electronic (NCEE)

 Intertek Testing Services

[  ] Check box if none

Financial Relationships with Voting Systems Industry

Companies and/or specified hardware labs (identify,

business relationship, stock ownership, other

investment interest, or any indebtedness to or other

financial relationship with any Voting Systems

Industry Company)

(X) if

no

longer

held

Number of shares

held/Describe any other

financial relationship

    

[  ] Check box and attach additional pages if needed    
Version 1.7 Page 3 1/9/2017 

Part II.  Outside Employment, Consulting and Other Relationships

The Company is required to ensure that you do not have any involvement in voting system

development activities (for example, providing consulting services to current or prospective

vendors of voting systems).  List below for yourself only any consulting relationships, employment,

board positions, advisory or other relationships, whether or not compensated, with any person or

entity (other than employment by the Company), held currently or during the past twelve months.  

Exclude positions with religious, social, fraternal or political entities or those solely of an honorary

nature.  

[  ] Check box if none

Organization (Name/Address Type of

Organization

Title/Type of

Position

(X) if no

longer held

      

[  ] Check box and attach additional pages

if needed

    

Part III:  Agreements or Arrangements

Report below (for yourself only) any agreements or arrangements in effect currently or during the

past twelve months for current or future employment, leaves of absence, continuation of

payment by a former employer (including severance payments), or continuing participation in an

employee benefit plan.

[  ] Check box if none

Terms of Agreement or Arrangement Other party(ies) to

agreement or

arrangement/address

Date of

Agreement or

Arrangement

    

[  ] Check box and attach additional pages if

needed

   

Part IV:  Gifts and Travel

List below for yourself, your spouse and your dependent children all gifts and travel

reimbursements received during the past twelve months that are of more than nominal value

(excluding gifts and travel reimbursements received from the Company, family members or close

friends who are not involved in any way with any voting systems vendor).  For purposes of this

report, a payment of under $100 or a gift with a value of under $100 is considered nominal value
Version 1.7 Page 4 1/9/2017 

unless such payment or gift is received from a voting systems vendor.  Any gifts or payments

received from voting systems vendors must be reported.  

[  ] Check box if none

Source/Address Description (for travel, include

itinerary)

Date  

    

[  ] Check box and attach additional

pages if needed

   

I certify that the statements I have made on this form and all attached statements (if any) are to

the best of my knowledge true, complete and correct as of the date set forth below my signature.   

_______________________________________   _____________________

Signature Date

To be completed by the Company:

Date received: On the basis of the credit bureau information reviewed and the information contained in

this report, the undersigned reviewers have concluded that, except as noted in “comments”

box below, the filer does not pose a risk of compromising the independence of the Company

in performance of services requiring independent testing and evaluation.  

Date of review: Signature of Supervisor:

____________________________________________________________________

Name:

Title:

Date of review: Signature of Compliance Officer:

____________________________________________________________________

Name:

Title:

Comments of Reviewers:

(attach additional page if needed)
May 5, 2017

Brian Hancock

Director, Voting System Certification

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300  

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Mr. Hancock:

The undersigned representative of SLI Compliance (hereinafter “Laboratory”), being lawfully

authorized to bind the Laboratory and having read the EAC Voting System Test Laboratory

Program Manual, accepts and agrees on behalf of the Laboratory to follow the program

requirements as laid out in Chapter 2 of the Manual.  

The Laboratory shall meet all program requirements as they relate to NVLAP accreditation;

conflict of interest and prohibited practices; personnel policies; notification of changes;

resources; site visits; notice of lawsuits; testing, technical practices and reporting; laboratory

independence; authority to do business in the United States; VSTL communications; financial

stability; and recordkeeping.  

The Laboratory further recognizes that meeting these program requirements is a continuing

responsibility.  

Failure to meet each of the requirements may result in the denial of an application for

accreditation, a suspension of accreditation or a revocation of accreditation.

Sincerely,

Traci Mapps

Director of Operations
From: Diane Gray

Sent on: Monday, March 5, 2018 9:01:34 PM

To: Jack Cobb Brian Hancock<BHancock@eac.gov>

CC: Michael Walker

Subject: RE: Lab Audit Agenda

Attachments: Quality Assurance Manual.pdf (456.45 KB)

Hi Brian,

I’m attaching our Quality Manual. I’ve also listed our staff below. We look forward to seeing and talking with you. Please

let me know if you have any questions or need other information.

Thanks,

Diane

Pro V&V Staff

Laboratory Director: Jack Cobb

Quality Assurance Manager: Diane Gray

VSTL Program Manager: Wendy Owens

VSTL Project Manager: Michael Walker

Project Engineers:

Stephen Han

Ryan Wilson

Alan Simmons

Larry Hillman

Hunter Medlock

Mancy Hammond

William Bush

Brent Bofenkamp

Research and Program Development Manager: Becky Santos

Office Manager: Melissa Moran

From: Jack Cobb

Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 2:23 PM

To: Brian Hancock <BHancock@eac.gov>

Cc: Michael Walker Diane Gray

Subject: Re: Lab Audit Agenda

We are both on the road but I will get Diane on this

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Brian Hancock <BHancock@eac.gov> wrote:

Jack, Mike,

Attached to this email is the agenda for our upcoming lab audit of Pro V&V. We are really

looking forward to talking with you and your staff and getting a peek at your new facilities.

At your earliest opportunity, could you please forward us the most up-to-date Quality Manual

for Pro V&V as well as an updated staff list? We'll do a bit of homework before we come

down to save us all some time.

Brian

Brian J. Hancock

Director, Testing and Certification

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)
202-459-7861

www.eac.gov

<Outlook-1492015432.png>

<ProVV_Compliance_Lab_Audit-Agenda.pdf>

SeniorElection Technology Specialist

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(202) 579-5496

www.eac.gov

From: Brian Hancock

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:34 AM

To: jack.cobb michael.walker Wendy Owens; Diane Gray

Cc: Ryan Macias; Jerome Lovato

Subject: Lab Audit Agenda

Good morning Jack.

We are very excited about finally getting the opportunity to come down and see the new, expanded Pro V&V.

Attached is our agendafor the audit. Ryan will be forwarding a copy of our audit plan sometime tomorrow.

Looking forward to seeing you all.

Brian

Brian J. Hancock

Director, Testing and Certification

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

202-459-7861

www.eac.gov

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
• Pro V&V’s Configuration Management (CM) Plan 

• Pro V&V Ethics Policy 

Organizational Procedure (QMS Quality Procedures):

• QA-21 Organizational Authorizations 

• QP-1, Process Improvement 

• QP-10, Contracting, Subcontracting, and Purchasing 

• QP-20, Organizational Procedure

• QP-30, Handling of Equipment and Test Items 

• QP-40, Statistical Sampling and Sampling Plan 

• QP 50 Test Report Procedure 

• QP-60, Cause Analysis, Anomaly Reporting, Nonconforming Work, Corrective 

Actions, and Preventive Actions 

• QP-70, Service to Customer 

• QP-80 Internal Audits

Pro V&V Quality Assurance Manual
Pro V&V, Inc.

Ethics Policy

Page 1 of 4

PRO V&V ETHICS POLICY

Author: Jack Cobb Origination Date: 11/14/2011

Policy Description: To avoid the involvement in any inappropriate activities that diminish the quality and confidence 

in its competency, impartiality, judgment, and operational integrity of the work performed by Pro V&V, Pro V&V 

requires all personnel to read, understand, and acknowledge in writing annually the Ethics Policy.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Pro V&V is committed to honesty, fairness, and providing a safe and healthy working environment that respects 

the dignity due to all. All employees desire and deserve a workplace where they feel respected, satisfied, and 

appreciated. Pro V&V will not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind - especially involving race, 

color, religion, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.

The goal of Pro V&V is excellence in the workplace and creating an environment that supports honesty, integrity, 

respect, trust, and responsibility. While every person who works for Pro V&V must contribute to the creation 

and maintenance of this environment, our management personnel is charged with special responsibilities for 

fostering a work environment that is free from the fear of retribution. Supervisors must take care that words and 

actions avoid placing, or seeming to place, pressure on subordinates that could cause them to depart from 

acceptable ethical behavior.

Pro V&V senior management has designed and implemented the Quality Management System (QMS) in order 

to provide assurance to employees and customers that no conflicts of interest exist between personnel and 

customers, so that all aspects of testing are performed without undue pressure, and with competence, impartiality, 

and operational integrity. All employees of Pro V&V must adhere to the requirements of this Ethics Policy and 

the Pro V&V QMS.

2.0 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

At all times, Pro V&V operations must be performed without any actual or perceived conflict of interest. If a 

conflict occurs, or any Pro V&V employee perceives that a conflict may occur, the employee should discuss the 

matter with their immediate supervisor, or any Pro V&V senior management.

Situations which should be avoided by all members of Pro V&V:

 Ownership or financial interest (other than nominal amounts of publicly traded company stocks) by either 

the employee or member of the employee’s immediate family, in any supplier, customer, or competitor 

of Pro V&V. If the employee’s spouse, child, or other immediate family member becomes employed by 

a customer or competitor of Pro V&V, the employee must immediately notify Pro V&V in writing.

 Any consulting or employment relationship with a supplier, customer, or competitor.

 Any outside business activity which is competitive with Pro V&V business.
Pro V&V, Inc.

Ethics Policy

Page 2 of 4

 Any outside activity which is extensive enough to question the ability of the employee to devote the time 

and attention necessary to their job duties with Pro V&V.

 Serving on any board of directors or customer, supplier, or competitor unless serving has been disclosed 

to and approved by Pro V&V.

 Directly supervising, reviewing, and/or evaluating the work performance of any family member.

 Using any opportunity learned during employment with Pro V&V that an employee takes advantage of 

which is in conflict with Pro V&V’s interests.

Any situation which presents a conflict of interest for an employee of Pro V&V may also present a conflict with 

the employee’s immediate family. Employees should discuss any possible instances with senior management.

3.0 RECORDS

All employees must maintain accurate and complete company records. Transactions between Pro V&V and 

outside individuals and organizations must be promptly and accurately entered in our books in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) and principles. No member of Pro V&V should rationalize or 

even consider misrepresenting facts or falsifying records. Falsifying or misrepresenting company records will 

not be tolerated and will result in disciplinary action, including the possibility of immediate termination of 

employment.

4.0 TIME KEEPING

Pro V&V requires all employees to accurately and correctly report hours charged to work projects. Any Pro 

V&V personnel found deliberately charging incorrect work to a customer will be subject to potential disciplinary 

action, up to, and including, termination. Any Pro V&V personnel who become aware of any inappropriate time 

charging should report such instances to their immediate supervisor or senior management of Pro V&V. This 

reporting may be anonymous. 

5.0 EXPENSE REPORTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS

All expense reports and reimbursement requests must be accurate. Any Pro V&V personnel requesting 

reimbursement must ensure no false or misleading requests are submitted. Pro V&V will ensure GAAP is

followed for reporting corporate funds. 

6.0 ENTERTAINMENT, GIFTS, AND PAYMENTS

Pro V&V will treat all persons and firms with whom it has business relationships in a fair and impartial manner. 

As accepting gifts, entertainment, favors, personal discounts and similar gratuities might influence or raise doubts 

as to the impartiality of the recipient, damage the reputation of Pro V&V for fair dealing, and violate federal 

statues where Government contracts are involved, misunderstandings usually can be avoided by business conduct 

that makes clear Pro V&V and its representatives transact business on an ethical basis and will not seek or grant 

special consideration.

Business courtesies, such as payment for a lunch or dinner in connection with a business meeting, are not 

normally considered a gift within the context of the Pro V&V QMS and this Ethics Policy. 

Advertising novelties are not inappropriate to give or receive provided the item is of nominal value and is widely 

distributed to others having essentially the same business relationship with the donor.

Each agency of the Federal Government has regulations prohibiting agency personnel from accepting 

entertainment, gifts, gratuities, payments or other business courtesies that may be acceptable in the commercial 

sector. No Pro V&V employee shall receive a gift from, or give any gift to, any employee or agent of the United 

States Federal Government or any state, local or foreign government. 
Pro V&V, Inc.

Ethics Policy

Page 3 of 4

5.0 POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Pro V&V encourages all employees to vote and be a part of the political process. No Pro V&V employee will 

make political contributions in the company’s name or using company funds. Pro V&V property and facilities 

will not be used for political activities.

6.0 TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Confidential client information and proprietary Company information may not be disclosed to anyone without 

proper authorization.

Pro V&V employees shall hold in strictest confidence and shall not (other than as specifically allowed in writing 

by Pro V&V) disclose or use any trade secrets and confidential and proprietary information directly or indirectly, 

either during the term of employee’s employment, or at any time thereafter, except as required by Pro V&V in 

the course of the employee’s employment. All employees will refuse any improper access to Pro V&V trade 

secrets and confidential and proprietary information, and to that of any other company, including Pro V&V’s 

competitors. 

This confidentiality includes but is not limited to, documents, drawings, schematics, contractual information, 

financial information, proprietary software, proprietary hardware, test schedules, test data, test outcomes, and 

test reports.

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 Responsibilities

All Pro V&V personnel shall be issued this Ethics Policy upon employment and will review the Ethics Policy on 

an annual basis. Each time the Ethics Policy is issued to personnel, the Compliance Certification must be signed 

verifying receipt, understanding, and acceptance. Signed Compliance Certifications will be retained in the 

employee’s personnel file. Any personnel requested to perform an activity which does not comply with the 

requirements of the Ethics Policy shall promptly report the incident to their supervisor or to any Pro V&V senior 

management.

Pro V&V management is responsible for implementing the requirements of the Ethics Policy. Managers are 

responsible for reporting to senior management any instances of noncompliance which are reported to them by 

employees or which have come to their attention. The Laboratory Director will review the Compliance 

Certification forms to determine if any conflicts exist. Any conflicts, or potential conflicts, will be addressed 

with the employee. 

Violations to the requirements of this Ethics Policy are grounds for disciplinary action, up to, and including, 

termination. Depending on the nature of the violation, civil or criminal actions may be taken against the 

employee.

7.2 Annual Certification

This Ethics Policy shall be distributed to all Pro V&V personnel on an annual basis. All Pro V&V personnel are 

required to read the Ethics Policy and certify understanding of and compliance with its requirements by 

completing the Compliance Certification form. 
Pro V&V, Inc.

Ethics Policy

Page 4 of 4

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION TO PRO V&V ETHICS POLICY

By signing and dating below, I certify:

 I have received and read the attached Pro V&V Ethics Policy and understand the terms. I agree to abide 

by the requirements of this Ethics Policy.

 I understand that failure to comply with the requirements of this Ethics Policy will be cause for 

disciplinary action up to, and including, termination of employment.

 To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor members of my immediate family have any interests which 

might be a conflict of interest with the provisions of this Ethics Policy.

______________________/_____________

Signature of employee/ date

_____________________________

Printed Name of Employee

Instructions: Please separate this form from the Ethics Policy and return to your supervisor within five days of receipt. The Pro V&V Ethics Policy 

should be retained by you. Please direct any questions regarding this Ethics Policy or certification to your immediate supervisor, or any Pro V&V senior 

management.
1

Minutes of the Public Meeting

United States Election Assistance Commission

Held at

Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City

1259 South Hayes Street

The Diplomat Room

Arlington, Virginia 22202

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) held on Wednesday, January 6, 2016. The 

meeting convened at 10:02 a.m., EDT. The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 

a.m., EDT.

PUBLIC MEETING

Call to Order:

Chairwoman Christy A. McCormick called the meeting to order at 10:02

a.m., EDT.

Pledge of Allegiance:

Chairwoman McCormick led all present in the recitation of the Pledge of 

Allegiance.

Roll Call:

EAC Commissioners:

Chairwoman McCormick called roll of the members of the 

Commission and found present: Chairwoman Christy A.

McCormick, Commissioner Thomas Hicks and Commissioner

Matthew V. Masterson. Three members were present for a 

quorum. 

Adoption of the Agenda

Commissioner Hicks made a motion to adopt the agenda for the

Board’s public meeting. Commissioner Masterson seconded the 

motion. The motion carried unanimously.
2

Welcoming remarks

Chairwoman McCormick said it has been almost a year since she 

and Commissioners Hicks and Masterson were appointed and it’s 

been an exciting and interesting year. She reported that a lot has 

been accomplished with the help of staff, stakeholders and partners 

in the election community. Between the three Commissioners, they 

visited 30 states this year, went to many conferences and 

meetings, and received a lot of good input concerning where the 

Commission should be headed.

Chairwoman McCormick reported that accomplishments during the 

past year included passing the Voluntary Voting Systems 

Guidelines 1.1 (VVSG 1.1); updating the testing and program 

manuals; reinstituting the EAC Advisory Boards, the Standards 

Board and the Board of Advisors; publishing the 2014 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), the National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA) and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) reports; recreating the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee to work on the next iteration of 

the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines; holding a successful 

Election Data Summit; holding a public meeting focused on 

accessibility issues; and, hiring a new Executive Director and 

General Counsel. Chairwoman McCormick thanked Alice Miller, 

who served as acting Executive Director and kept the Commission 

going during the years when it had no Commissioners. She also 

reported that Alice Miller is no longer with the EAC.

Chairwoman McCormick introduced Brian Newby, the new 

Executive Director and Cliff Tatum, the new General Counsel.

Commissioner Hicks said he is looking forward to the new year 

working with his fellow Commissioners, state and local election 

officials, and other stakeholders, to further the goals of the EAC 

and the American people. He welcomed Brian Newby and Cliff 

Tatum and expressed his thanks to Alice Miller for all the work she 

did over the last five or six years with the EAC.

Commissioner Masterson said that the focus of the Commission 

this year will be to serve its customers, the election administrators, 

across the country to make sure they have the resources they need 

to continue to serve the voters. He thanked Chairwoman 

McCormick for the work she did last year and he echoed the thanks 

to Alice Miller for the work she did to keep the EAC running and to 

push it forward. 
3

Old Business:

Approval of the minutes from the previous meeting

Commissioner Masterson made a motion to accept the minutes 

from the July 28, 2015, public meeting. Commissioner Hicks

seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

New Business:

Report of the Executive Director

Executive Director Brian Newby said he only has three things for 

the Commission since he just joined EAC in November. He first 

echoed the thanks to Alice Miller and commended her for her 

leadership during a time when there were no Commissioners. 

Mr. Newby reported that the EAC does not foresee backfilling the 

Chief Operating Officer at this time, although they will be looking at 

the overall staffing needs. 

Mr. Newby reported that there is major communication activity 

underway today, including a roundtable. In addition, a 

communications video is scheduled for later this month relating to

postal issues. 

Mr. Newby reported they are reviewing the voter registration 

information on the EAC website. They are looking at starting a 

regular process where they will ask state election directors to 

review the instructions and let EAC know if any changes need to be 

made to be consistent with laws. In response to a question from 

Commissioner Masterson, Mr. Newby confirmed that the EAC 

Website will direct voters to individual state’s websites for online 

registration or their state-specific registration form.

Recommendation and Discussion on VVSG 1.1 Transition Date – Brian 

Hancock, EAC Director, Testing and Certification, and James Long, Voting 

Systems Program Manager, NTS

Presenter: Brian Hancock, EAC Director, Testing and Certification 

Mr. Hancock addressed the Commission to provide testimony with 

respect to recommendations on VVSG 1.1 transition date.

Mr. Hancock reported that at the EAC public meeting on March 31, 

2015, the Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt VVSG 1.1 
4

for the testing of voting systems and the EAC staff recommended it 

be immediately available for the testing and certification of voting 

systems. Staff also suggested, and the Commissioners agreed, 

that within six months the Commissioners, with input from 

stakeholders, could identify a timeline for transitioning more fully 

from the 2005 VVSG. Staff also recommended that modifications 

to systems certified to the 2005 VVSG 1.0 could still be submitted 

for testing and certification to that standard after the transition to 

VVSG 1.1.

Mr. Hancock believes that they have received enough feedback 

from stakeholders to recommend a reasonable timeframe for 

transitioning fully to VVSG 1.1. Stakeholders suggested from as 

little as eight to 12 months for the transition, while others suggested 

as long as three years. He believes it must also be recognized that 

EAC, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), and the 

working group members have already started the process of 

developing the next iteration of VVSG. He believes consideration 

should be given very early in the process as to how and when the 

next iteration should be implemented by the election community. 

He urged everyone to become part of that process.

Mr. Hancock reported that the EAC staff recommends, in light of 

the information received from stakeholders over the past nine 

months, and acknowledging that the next iteration of VVSG is now 

under development, that the Commissioners vote to require all new 

voting systems submitted for EAC testing and certification be tested 

to VVSG 1.1 18 months from today’s date or the date of their vote. 

At that time, the 2005 VVSG 1.0 would no longer be used for 

testing new voting systems, but would be available for testing

modifications to systems previously certified to that standard. Staff 

will provide clarification regarding the definition of what constitutes 

a “new” voting system at an EAC public meeting later this year.

Presenter: James Long, Voting Systems Program Manager,

National Technical Systems (NTS)

Mr. Long addressed the Commission to provide testimony with 

respect to recommendations on VVSG 1.1 transition date, providing 

a summary of NTS’s perspective on how the implementation and 

adoption of VVSG 1.1 is progressing.

Mr. Long noted the distinction between “implementation” and 

“adoption” as implementation being the ability to operationalize the 

standard, or take it from its written version and put it into test cases, 
5

and adoption being that the manufacturers are able to adopt the 

requirements, incorporate them into their systems, and then submit 

those systems.

Mr. Long explained that with any new standard, a common 

understanding of each requirement must be reached and this 

consensus shapes the scope of testing, and in turn drives the cost 

of testing. The absence of consensus can impede implementation 

of the standard. Because consensus is used to design the testing 

so everyone gets tested the same way, without consensus they 

cannot operationalize the standard. Currently, they are working 

through a couple of requirements with the EAC Testing and 

Certification Division to get consensus among the manufacturers 

and testing labs as to how they should be tested. NTS will continue 

to work with EAC to establish a common understanding for other 

requirements that are in question over the next 18 months.

Mr. Long then addressed adoption by saying that before any of the 

benefits of the new standard can be realized, it must be adopted 

and incorporated into the voting manufacturers’ design processes. 

While there are many factors that can drive adoption, Mr. Long 

addressed two – economics and sunsetting. He said the most 

common factor is usually economics. In the electronics world, the 

reason companies continue to develop new things such as iPhones 

and computers is because there is money to do so, and there is a 

return on that money. However, in the voting systems industry the 

economics are different, and Mr. Long said they will not be relying 

on that to see this adoption. 

Mr. Long explained that sunsetting is the process of taking a 

standard as previously required and setting a fixed date on which it 

will no longer be applicable and EAC has used sunsetting to move 

standards forward. Mr. Long noted that sunsetting can 

inadvertently cause gridlock in the certification of new or modified 

voting systems. 

Mr. Long noted that the recommendation is for incorporating VVSG 

1.1 in 18 months and discontinuing the testing of new voting 

systems to the 2005 VVSG at that time. Because the 

recommendation includes that voting systems already certified to 

2005 can be modified and tested to the 2005 standard, the 

recommendation, if accepted, should allow for an extended period 

of use while manufacturers shift to designing systems to meet 

VVSG 1.1. This will minimize the risk of gridlock in the certification 

industry.
6

Mr. Long described how NTS worked with voting system 

manufacturers, EAC Testing and Certification staff, and other 

interested parties, this past fall to introduce and discuss the new 

requirements. Over the next 18 months NTS will continue to work 

with the voting system manufacturers and EAC to help the industry 

migrate to the new standard.

Questions and Answers

In response to Chairwoman McCormick’s first question regarding 

how the certification division had begun preparing for the transition 

to VVSG 1.1, Mr. Hancock reported that they learned from adoption 

of the 2005 VVSG that there are always many interpretation 

questions and they are trying to address those at this time, not 

waiting until the transition date. They have been doing this by 

having meetings about VVSG 1.1 with the test labs and talking with 

the manufacturers.

In response to another question from Chairwoman McCormick 

regarding what requirements are preventing implementation of 

VVSG 1.1 right now, Mr. Long responded they are working through 

some of the operational environmental hardware testing because of 

military specifications on temperature ranges. He said the other 

large requirement they are working through is the scope of the 

source code review. He said the requirement itself is not in 

question, but the issue is that it is very expensive to test that 

requirement. They are looking at the scope of that review and how 

to leverage automated testing to alleviate that cost.

In response to Commissioner Hicks’ first question with regard to 

whether the VSTLs and the manufacturers believe they can actually 

implement VVSG 1.1 18 months from now, Mr. Hancock responded 

that he understands the VSTLs will get up to speed as quickly as 

possible. At some point they will have to be reaccredited by the 

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) to 

the new standard, but until that time they can remain viable in 

testing. Concerning the manufacturers, Mr. Hancock believes they 

generally fall in two camps. The more traditional manufacturers 

that have a lot of legacy systems have more work to do to catch up 

to some of the items in VVSG 1.1 and they would like the 

implementation date pushed further out. The newer manufacturers 

have developed a good portion, or perhaps all, of their system to 

the VVSG 1.1 standard so they have significantly less issues. Mr. 

Long responded that from the VSTLs’ perspective there is no issue 

in adopting the VVSG 1.1 standard; they were already incorporating 

the standard before it was even approved. However, as mentioned 
7

by Mr. Hancock, the scope of accreditation will need to be adjusted 

by NVLAP. He said there is nothing preventing them from 

operationalizing in the next couple of months. He believes the 18 

months is more to allow the industry itself to work through the 

adoption of the standard.

In response to another question from Commissioner Hicks’ on the 

impact of VVSG 1.1 on the 2016 election cycle Mr. Hancock 

responded that he does not expect it to have a great impact 

because right now there is only one system in the very early stages 

of testing to VVSG 1.1, although they may get others later this year. 

He said that perhaps there will be a more significant impact on the 

2018 election cycle.

In response to Commissioner Masterson’s first question regarding 

whether systems can be submitted for testing to VVSG 1.1 at this 

time Mr. Hancock confirmed that they can be submitted now.

In response to Commissioner Masterson’s follow-up question 

regarding whether EAC is ready to take applications from 

manufacturers to get certified to VVSG 1.1 Mr. Hancock responded 

that they are ready to do so. He reiterated that they have one 

system already in the early stages of testing to VVSG 1.1 in 

pursuance of certification. 

In response to another follow-up question from Commissioner 

Masterson concerning whether manufacturers have contacted NTS 

Mr. Long said they have been contacted by all of their customers 

and they have had individual discussions about migration to VVSG

1.1. He noted that VSTL does not get involved in development so it 

cannot provide any guidance there, but it has started conversations 

about achieving conformance and testing.

In response to another question from Commissioner Masterson 

regarding changes in the program manual to create efficiencies for 

the speed of testing and the ability to continue to test to the 2005 

VVSG, Mr. Hancock responded that early on in the program the 

biggest complaint was that testing takes too long and perhaps is 

too expensive. He said that early on manufacturers submitted 

voting systems not yet ready for testing which resulted in time 

consuming back and forth between the test lab and manufacturer. 

He believes that working with manufacturers has led to them now 

submitting voting systems that are much more ready for testing. 

Mr. Hancock added that EAC has implemented a pre-test to verify 

that systems are ready for testing. This includes ensuring the 

manufacturer has all the hardware needed for the test and ensuring 
8

the source code looks like it is generally correct and maintainable. 

Mr. Long added that the readiness of the voting systems being 

submitted now is very different than those originally submitted and 

the time to test and the cost has been reduced tremendously. In 

addition to improvement in the readiness of the voting systems 

being submitted, Mr. Long said NTS has reduced the testing cost 

through efficiencies such as more efficient testing and a more 

efficient process for generating reports and collecting data.

In response to another follow-up question from Commissioner 

Masterson asking if due to the work done by EAC the time to test 

modifications has gone from months to a month or even, in some 

cases, weeks with the cost being significantly lower, Mr. Long 

responded affirmatively.

In response to Commissioner Masterson asking for a walk-through 

of the standards development process and a plug for how people 

can get involved with the standards development process Mr. 

Hancock obliged. He said that over the last five or six years 

everyone knew the old way of developing the standards wasn’t 

working. The process essentially involved a lot of up front work by 

NIST, the TGDC and the EAC to develop a document for public 

comment and the public input was not received at the time it was 

needed to affect the document. This time they reversed the 

process and have used working groups to get public input early in 

the process. In addition, they realize that the VVSG has not 

necessarily reflected the election process as it really happens and 

by getting more up front information from as many groups as 

possible, such as state and local election officials, academics, 

technologists, and test labs, they hope to develop a better 

document.

In response to Commissioner Masterson asking how an election 

official can get involved with the public working groups Mr. Hancock 

said the easiest way is to go to the vote.nist.gov site. The EAC 

also has a link on its website. Individuals can sign up for any or all 

of the working groups and NIST maintains the mailing lists.

In response to Commissioner Masterson asking about the value, in 

the test lab community, of an iterative process approach for the 

next VVSG Mr. Long stated that it provides flexibility and adoption 

to new changes in technology. Mr. Long said the pitfall, from the 

lab point of view, is that it has to be testable. The lab cannot test if 

something is “good” – it has to be measurable and there must be a 

way to judge conformance equally among all manufacturers.
9

In response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Hicks 

asking if one has to be an election official to participate in the 

working groups Mr. Hancock said that election officials are not the 

only participants. He reiterated that the test labs, manufacturers, 

and members of the general public who feel they have something 

to offer to the process can be a member; anyone can join.

In response to a question from Chairwoman McCormick about the 

impact transitioning to VVSG 1.1 will have on state certifications Mr. 

Hancock responded that it will probably not have a heavy impact in 

most states. He said that many states rely heavily on the EAC 

certification and then go ahead and do whatever is unique to their 

own state in the testing process. Mr. Long responded that the 

impact should not increase; a new system for at least the next 18 

months would be able to be tested to the 2005 VVSG. He added 

that if manufacturers are getting modifications tested to the 2005 

VVSG or VVSG 1.1, the paradigm does not shift for the state 

certification process; they still have to go to the state for 

certification.

In response to a follow-up question from Chairwoman McCormick 

asking if EAC and NTS have heard from local election officials with 

concern whether old systems that were tested under 2005 VVSG 

would still be certified or whether they should be purchasing 

systems tested only to VVSG 1.1 Mr. Hancock responded that he 

has heard those concerns. He explained that in the past there was 

a hard and fast cutoff date and local election officials had systems 

that could not be modified under the EAC program, but EAC 

learned from that. He said that allowing modifications to the 2005 

VVSG should alleviate that past problem and the VVSG 1.1 

adoption can move forward. Mr. Long responded by echoing Mr. 

Hancock and adding that the states and local jurisdictions should 

work with their manufacturers because it is ultimately the 

manufacturers’ decision on what to do with the older systems, 

whether it’s economically viable to maintain them to VVSG 2005. 

He added that from what has come through his lab, very few 2005 

VVSG certified systems could meet the VVSG 1.1 standard; 

something would have to be done to the older systems to make 

them VVSG 1.1 compliant and that is a manufacturer’s decision.

In response to another follow-up question from Chairwoman 

McCormick asking if local election officials can demand that a 

system be tested to VVSG 1.1 Mr. Long responded that it would be 

their decision. He said they could write that requirement into RFPs 

and/or work with their manufacturers and that would drive adoption 
10

from the manufacturer if the manufacturer wanted to continue with 

the jurisdiction.

Commissioner Masterson made a motion to adopt full 

implementation for VVSG 1.1 at the date 18 months from today’s 

vote with no new systems being tested to the 2005 VVSG after that 

date. Commissioner Hicks seconded the motion. The motion 

carried unanimously.

Recommendation of Policy Regarding Employee Participation with Outside 

Organizations

Presenter: Cliff Tatum, EAC General Counsel

Mr. Tatum addressed the Commission to provide information with 

respect to recommendations on policies regarding employee 

participation with outside organizations.

Mr. Tatum provided information on the EAC administrative manual 

and EAC’s policies on employee conduct noting that all EAC 

employees are responsible for conducting themselves in a manner 

consistent with federal laws and regulations, commonly referred to 

as the Standards of Ethics for Employees of the Executive Branch. 

He said the majority of the regulations and statutes set forth 

standards that deal with financial conflicts of interest and outside 

employment activities. Accordingly, he intends to propose draft 

policies/regulations to develop standards that specifically address 

the appearance of impropriety and impartiality associated with 

outside activities as well as employment related activities to provide 

more clarity to situations not specifically addressed by criminal 

statutes or the civil statutes or the Code of Ethics and for situations 

that involve appearances of conflicts.

Mr. Tatum provided a highlight of draft regulations intended as a 

starting point for the Commissioners noting that the draft 

regulations are not yet ready for public comment. After the 

Commissioners make edits and revisions and suggestions, Mr. 

Tatum will contact the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) for 

assistance in preparing the regulations for joint concurrence and 

publication in the Federal Register. Highlights of the draft 

regulations include policies prohibiting outside employment and 

business activities related to the elections industry; whether 

employees can participate in non-profit organizations or non-federal 

organizations that advocate for or against any particular policies 

associated with the elections industry; a process for employees to 
11

seek approval to participate in what might be a covered activity; 

and, definitions of covered activities.

Questions and Answers:

In response to Chairwoman McCormick’s first question with respect 

to whether approval of an employee’s activity absolves an 

employee of any violations of the ethics policy Mr. Tatum 

responded that it would not. Under the current Codes and criminal 

statutes employees can receive approval for some activities, but if 

that activity moves toward a violation, then the employee would be 

responsible for the conduct.

In response to Chairwoman McCormick’s follow-up question asking 

what happens if an employee commits a violation Mr. Tatum said 

the employee would be asked to stop participating in the activity 

and if the activity reached the level of criminal activity there would 

be a referral to the OGE. The Department of Justice (DOJ) would 

decide if criminal prosecution was warranted.

In response to another follow-up question from Chairwoman 

McCormick asking whose responsibility it is to ensure that the 

ethics policy is not violated Mr. Tatum said that ultimately it is the 

employee’s responsibility to make certain that any outside activities 

they participate in are not a covered activity prohibited by federal 

statutes or by EAC supplemental regulations. Employees should 

seek approval/clearance from his office before participating in any 

activity they believe maybe a covered activity. In addition, Mr. 

Tatum noted that supplemental regulations do not supplant the 

Code of Ethics.

In response to Commissioner Hicks’ first question concerning 

whether the proposed regulations prohibit any of an employee’s 

First Amendment rights of association and whether they are a 

blanket prohibition for them to have any sort of outside activities Mr. 

Tatum responded that the regulations are not a blanket prohibition; 

they are a starting point to address activities that might have the 

appearance of impropriety.

In response to Commissioner Hicks’ follow-up question regarding 

whether other agencies have similar supplemental regulations Mr. 

Tatum responded that roughly 50 plus agencies have submitted 

supplemental regulations, with the Federal Election Commission 

(FEC) being the most similar to this agency. 
12

In response to Commissioner Masterson’s first question concerning 

whether the draft regulations and the EAC’s Code of Ethics will jive 

with each other Mr. Tatum responded that they will.

In response to another question from Commissioner Masterson 

regarding whether the staff will be appropriately trained so they 

understand their responsibilities Mr. Tatum responded that they will 

be trained.

In response to another question from Chairwoman McCormick 

asking if the supplement regulations will affect the Commissioners 

Mr. Tatum replied that he will look further into that matter. He noted 

that the Commissioners are subject to the Code of Ethics and that 

he did not draft these regulations with the intent of any further 

prohibitions for the Commissioners.

In response to another question from Commissioner Hicks 

concerning the timeframe Mr. Tatum responded that he proposes

receiving the Commissioners’ edits and revisions within the next 

couple of weeks and then in February move forward to have 

discussions with OGE.

In response to a follow-up question from Chairwoman McCormick 

concerning whether a vote would be needed Mr. Tatum replied that 

a vote would probably be needed for him to move forward with 

OGE.

Commissioners’ Closing Remarks

Commissioner Hicks said he is looking forward to the 2016 election 

cycle and the Commission continuing its job. He also noted that at 

2:00 p.m. today they will be broadcasting their version of TED Talks 

on the website.

Commissioner Masterson noted there is a roundtable today at 2:30 

p.m., a conversation with battleground jurisdictions.

Chairwoman McCormick concluded by noting that this will be a very 

interesting and exciting year.

The public meeting of the EAC adjourned at 11:04 a.m.
1

Minutes of the Public Meeting

United States Election Assistance Commission

1335 East West Highway

First Floor Conference Room

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (“EAC”) held on Thursday, December 15, 2016. The 

meeting convened at 10:32 a.m., EDT. The meeting was adjourned at 2:02 p.m., 

EDT.

PUBLIC MEETING

Call to Order:

Chairman Thomas Hicks called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m., EDT at 

which time he led everyone present in the recitation of the Pledge of 

Allegiance.

Roll Call:

EAC Commissioners:

Chair Hicks called roll of the members of the Commission and found 

present himself, Vice-Chair Matt Masterson and Commissioner Christy 

McCormick. Three members were present for a quorum. 

Adoption of the Agenda

Commissioner McCormick made a motion to adopt the previous public

meeting agenda which was seconded by Commissioner Masterson. The 

motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Masterson made a motion to adopt the public meeting 

agenda as written which was seconded by Commissioner McCormick. 

The motion carried unanimously.

The Commissioners expressed their deep appreciation to colleague Brian 

Lewis for his dedication and leadership on behalf of the EAC and 

requested that everyone keep him in their thoughts and prayers during his 

illness.

Commissioners’ Opening Remarks
2

Chairman Hicks extended his sincere appreciation to election officials 

across the country, EAC staff, poll workers and advocates for a 

successfully run presidential election, in addition to noting that a 

roundtable is scheduled for January 12, 2017, at which time the EAC will 

take a more in-depth look back at the 2016 elections.

Commissioner McCormick extended her congratulations and appreciation 

to election officials, the thousands of poll workers and EAC staff on 

running an excellent, successful, legitimate and fair election in addition to 

commenting briefly on her Election Day travels/observations which 

included stops in Philadelphia, PA, Clark County, Nevada and Los 

Angeles, California.

Commissioner Masterson echoed his sincere thanks to state and local 

election administrators and poll workers for all of their hard work in an 

election that was run with integrity, security and accessibility. 

Commissioner Masterson also shared two takeaways from the election, 

the first that the election community as a whole embraced the 

conversation, the transparency and welcomed voters to become educated 

regarding the facts and processes surrounding an election; the second

which focused on the work that remains towards making the process even 

better.

Report from the Executive Director

Brian D. Newby addressed the Commission to provide some brief 

comments/highlights regarding EAC staff’s perspective pertaining to 

Election Day, which also included EAC’s efforts with respect to the 

BeReady16 series. Mr. Newby also addressed areas that EAC will be 

focusing on during 2017, the centerpiece of the program, which will be the 

Election Administration Voting Survey (EAVS).

De-Brief on the 2016 Election (Election Officials)

Chair Hicks introduced and welcomed the following three panelists: 

Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of State; Veronica DeGraffenreid, 

Election Preparation & Support Manager, State Board of Elections, North 

Carolina; and Rob Rock, Rhode Island Director of Elections.

Secretary of State Denise Merrill addressed the Commission to share her 

experiences related to both the State of Connecticut, in addition to her 

experience as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State 

(NASS) during the 2016 presidential election, which included the impact of 

social media, the success of online voter registration and Election Day 

registration. Secretary Merrill also highlighted the success that resulted 
3

from a $230,000 grant Connecticut received from the EAC for research 

and development with respect to a post-election audit process.

Ms. DeGraffenreid addressed the Commission to provide some general 

data and statistics related to North Carolina surrounding election events, 

election technology, which included the use of e-poll books and the 

development of both an Election Night reporting application along with an 

election results web application. Ms. DeGraffenreid also provided 

observations regarding how elections officials within her state have met 

various challenges from both the 2016 primary and general elections

which include the handling of post-election processes and pointed out 

several high-level takeaways that North Carolina will be focused on in 

elections to come.

Mr. Rock addressed the Commission to provide testimony regarding the 

efforts that Rhode Island has taken to modernize elections, which included 

an overview with respect to the implementation of new voting equipment

which included the compilation of a voting equipment taskforce and was 

rolled out for the September 13, 2016, primary election; an e-poll book 

pilot program wherein 37 precincts used e-poll books for the primary 

election and was expanded to 57 precincts for the November election; and

implementation of an online voter registration portal which was rolled out 

August 1, 2016.

Questions and Answers

In response to Commissioner McCormick’s first question regarding 

whether there were any concerns that voting systems were hacked or that 

outside entities changed the outcome of the election at all, both Mr. Rock 

and Ms. DeGraffenreid replied in the negative. Ms. DeGraffenreid pointed 

out that while it did raise questions, a great deal of effort/conversation 

went into exploring whether or not it was possible and she is quite 

satisfied it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hack a national 

election in any meaningful way. Commissioner McCormick inquired into 

what data the panelists found most helpful in increasing efficiency with 

respect to the election. Ms. DeGraffenreid commented on the importance 

of checks and balances. Mr. Rock pointed out the importance of online 

voter registration and the data generated from e-poll books will prove to be 

very helpful. In response to what type of safeguards/backups Rhode 

Island had in place to ensure that there were no cyber issues with its voter 

registration list Mr. Rock credited his IT team who worked with the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other individuals to ensure 

that the system was operating, in addition to numerous reconciliation 

pieces that were involved. With regard to Commissioner McCormick’s 

inquiry into what advice Mr. Rock would give to other states who are 

considering purchasing new voting equipment, he emphasized the 
4

importance of collaboration/feedback from the stakeholder community. In 

response to Commissioner McCormick’s question with respect to what 

training on technology was provided to election officials and poll workers, 

Ms. DeGraffenreid noted that software simulations, guidance from 

resource manuals and webinars were utilized both with e-poll books and 

the election night reporting technology. In reply to Commissioner 

McCormick’s inquiry into what voters/media need to know about elections, 

aside from the fact that the election system is decentralized and that no 

one is connected to the Internet, Secretary Merrill pointed out helping 

them understand the openness/transparency in the election process is 

very important.

In response to Commissioner Masterson’s question regarding what 

lessons were learned with regard to the implementation of new voting 

equipment, e-poll books and online voter registration in a presidential 

election, Mr. Rock replied the successful outcome was due to teamwork 

within his state, which included the assistance of the EAC. In reply to 

Commissioner Masterson’s inquiry into how states can meet the challenge 

of moving forward with innovations while at the same time ensuring secure 

and accessible elections, Ms. DeGraffenreid and Mr. Rock emphasized 

the importance of engaging all aspects of the community to include voters, 

advocacy groups and the media. Secretary Merrill stated that in light of 

recent concerns raised over technical security in addition to accuracy 

versus speed, it was her recommendation that states consider taking 

advantage of voting centers similar to UCONN that could do background 

work towards the integrity/security in connection with modernizing 

elections may be very beneficial.

In reply to Chairman Hicks’ question to the panel with respect to what 

lessons were learned during the primary election they were able to change 

for the general election in terms of just overall improving the process, Ms. 

DeGraffenreid pointed out the importance both regarding utilization of data 

and reconciliation in addition to looking towards their voting systems 

vendor for future improvement. Mr. Rock and Secretary Merrill pointed out 

that utilizing the new technology in a real environment was essential. In 

response to Chairman Hicks’ second inquiry into what sort of challenges 

North Carolina’s overseas voters faced in terms of casting their ballots and 

lessons that were learned, Ms. DeGraffenreid replied that her state has 

worked hard over the past two presidential election terms since 2008 to 

improve access to voting for UOCAVA voters which has proven successful 

with the majority of overseas voters utilizing email for requesting, receiving 

and returning their ballots. In response to Chairman Hicks’ final question 

regarding what recommendations/requests the panelists have pertaining 

to the 2018 election cycle, both Mr. Rock and Ms. DeGraffenreid urged 

that the EAC continue serving as an information portal/clearinghouse. 

Secretary Merrill encouraged the development of a grant program in order 
5

to help standardize elections which she pointed out would be very 

beneficial.

[The Commission recessed at 12:06 p.m. and reconvened at 12:15 p.m.]

De-Brief on the 2016 Election 

Chairman Hicks introduced and welcomed the following four panelists:

David Beirne, Acting Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program;

Adam Ambrogi, Program Director, Elections, The Democracy Fund; 

Michelle Bishop, National Disability Rights Network; Don Palmer, Fellow, 

Bipartisan Policy Center.

Mr. Beirne addressed the Commission to provide an overview regarding 

both the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) and the Department 

of Defense’s activities in support of the 2016 election, to identify lessons 

learned and provide a summary of the trends it witnessed and steps that 

are being in taken in preparation of the 2018 election cycle.

Mr. Ambrogi addressed the Commission to provide remarks regarding The 

Democracy Fund’s observations with respect to the 2016 election which 

included its efforts at helping the public distinguishing the difference 

between the process and the results, support provided to election officials, 

ways to reduce the impact of lines, an overview of voters’ sentiments with 

respect to the U.S. election system and the results of a poll it conducted to 

assess what can be done to assist election officials talk about how to have 

faith and trust in the election system.

Ms. Bishop addressed the Commission to provide an overview regarding 

what the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) observed in 

connection with the 2016 election in terms of things that went well which 

included an increase in media coverage and public attention to voters with 

disabilities, the accessibility of caucuses during the primary season and 

the success of the voting rights card for voters with disabilities. Ms. 

Bishop pointed out some of the challenges that were observed include 

long lines and how to provide accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities, ensuring that individuals who are hospitalized outside of their 

county or jurisdiction of residence receive a ballot, voters who were denied 

the right to have someone assist them in casting their ballot, the

preparedness of poll workers to provide reasonable accommodation to 

individuals with disabilities in addition to knowing the accessibility features 

of the voting equipment. Included in her comments was the importance of 

real and meaningful partnerships between those running elections and 

individuals with disabilities, the importance that all voters can vote by one 

method in addition to the importance with regard to funding and research
6

in order to ensure that voting systems are accurate, secure and accessible 

for all voters.

Mr. Palmer addressed the Commission to provide an overview of what the 

Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) has been doing to improve the voting 

process for all voters which includes a partnership with Cal-Tech MIT to 

collect and measure Election Day lines at polling places across the 

country in an effort to reduce the potential for lines and improve the voting 

process; and, focusing on ways to improve the security, capabilities and 

integrity of statewide voter registration systems in addition to 

understanding what voter registration systems can do to serve voters 

more effectively and protecting their personal information.

Questions and Answers

In response to Commissioner Masterson’s first question regarding what 

steps election officials took to manage lines better during the 2016 

election and where improvements have yet to be made based on the data 

that is being collected, Mr. Palmer pointed out that technology, data and 

preparation were the key ingredients to an efficient process.

In response to Commissioner McCormick’s question regarding how each 

of the panelists would rate the improvement of the voting process on a 

scale of one to ten since the passage of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA), UOCAVA, the MOVE Act or the Presidential Commission on 

Election Administration (PCEA) Mr. Rock ranked it at seven with reference 

to the MOVE Act pointing out that while the electronic delivery has proven 

to be successful, it still remains to be seen in terms of the usability of the 

experience. Mr. Ambrogi rated it 7.5 to eight, Ms. Bishop stated that she 

would give it a score of roughly 1,000 based upon the fact that HAVA has 

had an immeasurable impact for people with disabilities and Mr. Palmer 

ranked it at a 8.5 or a “B” since implementation of both HAVA and the 

MOVE Act, pointing out with advancements in technology along with 

increased data it is his belief the voting process can improve to an “A”.

In response to Chairman Hicks’ inquiry into whether early voting/absentee 

voting played a role in lessening long lines on Election Day, Mr. Palmer

commented that from an election administration point of view early 

voting/voting by mail definitely both reduces the pressure on Election Day 

and also allows election officials to plan for mitigating lines. With respect 

to Chairman Hicks’ second question to the entire panel regarding what 

they would like the EAC, or others, to be working on to avert any sort of 

crisis Mr. Beirne emphasized the importance of supporting election 

officials by means of the clearinghouse function. Mr. Ambrogi concurred 

that the clearinghouse function is essential in addition to the need for more 

funding. Ms. Bishop emphasized the importance of the VVSG in addition 
7

to guidance around anything that does not end up being covered through 

the VVSG, the accessibility of online voter registration systems, ensuring 

the development and effectiveness of e-poll books, replacing outdated 

voting equipment and determining how it will be funded, making sure that 

manufacturers who are developing new voting systems are truly 

innovating so that it is user friendly for all voters. Mr. Palmer commented 

that the EAC’s main focus will need to be on the technology crisis and 

cyber security.

[The Commission recessed at 1:22 p.m. and reconvened at 1:27 p.m.]

10th Anniversary of the Testing and Certification Program

Chairman Hicks introduced and welcomed the following three panelists:

Ed Smith, Vice President, Product Development, Clear Ballot; Steve 

Pearson, Vice President, Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software 

(ES&S); Brian Hancock, Director, EAC Testing and Certification Program.

Mr. Smith on behalf of Clear Ballot addressed the Commission to extend 

his congratulations both on maintaining and improving the Testing and 

Certification Program, to reflect on the changes that have taken place 

within the program and where continuous improvements can be made. 

Mr. Smith extended an invitation to anyone interested in learning about the 

testing and certification of systems to become involved to see firsthand 

how it has progressed since its inception ten years ago.

Mr. Pearson on behalf of ES&S addressed the Commission regarding the

10th anniversary of the Testing and Certification Program by reflecting on 

the challenges faced, lessons learned, accomplishments and opportunities 

for improvement.

Mr. Hancock addressed the Commission regarding the 10th anniversary of 

the Testing and Certification Program by recognizing the various EAC staff 

members that helped contribute to the program from its inception up to the 

present time, the skill and credibility of the test laboratories and all of the 

great colleagues across the country that are engaged in certification work 

of voting systems.

Questions and Answers

In response to Chairman Hicks’ question regarding whether there are any 

suggestions for improvements with respect to the Testing and Certification 

Program as work continues on the next iteration of the Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines (VVSG) and the EAC in general, Mr. Smith pointed out 

the EAC needs to be on the watch for and prevent a small but vocal group 

of individuals who seek to stifle both the implementation and testing of 
8

systems. Mr. Pearson emphasized that maintaining stability is a critical 

factor along with allowing sufficient time for changes/migrations in 

systems.

Adjournment

Commissioner McCormick made a motion to adjourn the meeting which 

was seconded by Commissioner Masterson. The motion carried 

unanimously.

The public meeting of the EAC adjourned at 2:02 p.m.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Minutes 

United States Election Assistance Commission 

BOARD OF ADVISORS MEETING 

April 23-24, 2018 

Hyatt Regency Coral Gables 

50 Alhambra Plaza 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

The following are the Minutes of the United States Election Assistance 

Commission (“EAC”) Board of Advisors held April 23-24, 2018. The meeting 

convened at 8:44 a.m. EDT on Monday, April 23, 2018, in Coral Gables, Florida at 

Hyatt Regency Coral Gables and adjourned on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:05 

p.m. EDT. 

Monday, April 23 

Call to Order 

Chairperson Sarah Ball Johnson called the meeting to order and welcomed 

everyone to Miami. 

Pledge of Allegiance 

Vice-Chairman Michael Winn led all present in the recitation of the Pledge 

of Allegiance. 

Roll Call 

Secretary Michael Yaki called roll for the Board of Advisors and found 

present himself, David Beirne, James Dickson, Sarah Ball Johnson, Marc 

Guthrie, Ricky Hatch, Daniel Ivey-Soto, Neal Kelley, Linda Lamone, Sarah 

Ball Johnson for Connie Lawson, Alysoun McLaughlin, Jeffrey McLeod, 

Gregory Moore, Sachin Pavithran, Richard Pilger, Gary Poser, Donald Mark 

Ritchie, Shane Schoeller, Barbara Simons, Philip Stark, Patricia TimmonsGoodson, and Michael Winn. 

Secretary Michael Yaki declared a quorum was established. 

Welcome Video from Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to the Advisory 

Board of the United States Elections Assistance Commission. 

Welcoming Remarks from the EAC Commissioners 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EAC Chairman Thomas Hicks welcomed the Board of Advisors members 

to Miami and thanked everyone for their dedication to the EAC Board of 

Advisors. 

Chairman Hicks mentioned the challenges election officials have faced in 

recent years and that insight about these issues from the Board of Advisors 

members serves as a key resource to the commission. He talked about the 

public hearings, workshops, round tables and meetings that the EAC 

commissioners conducted in 26 states across the country in 2017 in order 

to expand resources to election officials and voters. Chairman Hicks also 

provided a detailed synopsis of the 2018 EAC Summit that was held on 

January 10th in Washington, D.C., which highlighted a spectrum of issues 

that state and local election officials will face as they work to administer a 

secure, accessible, and efficient 2018 Federal Election. Attendees heard 

from keynote speakers and expert panelists who addressed topics such as 

election security, voting accessibility, and how to use election data to 

improve the voter experience. He also gave examples of the tools and 

resources that the commission provided to election officials at the summit 

to help strengthen their ability to serve millions of American voters. 

Mr. Hicks expressed the EAC’s commitment to making the $380 million in 

2018 HAVA election funds available as soon as possible to support election 

activities to approve the administration of elections. 

Mr. Hicks expressed his appreciation for all members of the Board of 

Advisors and introduced Vice-Chairperson Christy McCormick. 

EAC Vice-Chairperson Christy McCormick welcomed all in attendance 

to Miami and expressed her appreciation for their presence and dedication 

and for their on-going hard work. She further expressed the importance and 

great value of the Board of Advisor’s perspectives and advice to guide the 

commission in their decisions to best determine where to concentrate efforts 

in the election community going forward. 

Vice-Chair McCormick explained that the commission needs to be on guard 

for any possible attempts to interfere with our elections and our democracy, 

and they are now required now to review everything with an eye towards 

security. She expressed the EAC’s desire to support and assist in any way 

they can to help with all the important tasks for this coming year, and that 

the commission is looking forward to hearing the perspectives of all those 

in attendance. She thanked the staff for their hard work in organizing the 

Advisory Boards’ meetings in Miami. 

Introductory Business: 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption of Agenda 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to approve the agenda as 

summited. Gary Poser made the motion and Mark Ritchie seconded the 

motion. Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried. 

Approval of Minutes 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to approve the minutes from the 

May 23-24, 2017, meeting of the Board of Advisors as submitted. Gregory 

Moore made the motion and Barbara Simons seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 

Overview of Bylaws and Proposed Amendments 

Chairperson Johnson reminded everyone that all members received a 

series of emails between December and early January to review the current 

bylaws and submit any proposed amendments. She reported that no 

proposed amendments to the bylaws were received as a result of that 

request. She further asked if any member present wished to propose an 

amendment to the bylaws at this time, and hearing none, she reported there 

are no proposed amendments to be considered at this time. 

Procedures to Fill Executive Board Vacancies 

Chairperson Johnson provided an overview of the history, terms, and 

procedures for electing new Board of Advisor officers. She also detailed 

the job description and responsibilities of the open position of the Board of 

Advisors Secretary. Ms. Johnson announced that Gary Poser, a member 

of the Board of Advisors representing the National Association of State 

Election Directors (NASED), has requested to be considered for the position 

of Board of Advisors Secretary. Ms. Johnson asked for any other members 

interested to come forward for consideration. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to nominate Gary Poser as the 

named candidate for Secretary of the Board of Advisors. Neal Kelley made 

the motion and Alysoun McLaughlin seconded the motion. Chairperson 

Johnson called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to nominate Michael Yaki as the 

named candidate for Vice-Chairman of the Board of Advisors. James 

Dickson made the motion and Philip Shark seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to nominate Michael Winn as the 

named candidate for Chairman of the Board of Advisors. Michael Yaki 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

made the motion and David Beirne seconded the motion. Chairperson 

Johnson called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 

In Memory of Wendy Noren 

Several members shared personal stories in honor of Wendy Noren, 

recently deceased Boone County Missouri Director. 

Resolutions Committee Appointed 

Chairperson Johnson announced the appointment of a Resolutions 

Committee with appointed Chairman as Michael Winn. Michael Yaki 

volunteered to join as a committee member. She encouraged all present 

with a resolution to confer with the Resolutions Committee. 

Introduction of New Members 

Chairman Thomas Hicks performed the official swearing in of the new 

members to the Board of Advisors. (Members names were not announced). 

The Board recessed at 9:15 a.m. and reconvened at 9:41 a.m. 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Responsibilities and Role of the 

Board Under the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) 

Clifford D. Tatum, EAC General Counsel, presented slides explaining that 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is the framework in which the 

Advisory Boards operate. The EAC Advisory Boards were created by the 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist the EAC in developing the 

Voluntary Voting Assistance Guidelines (VVSG), reviewing and 

participating in creating best practices recommendations for the EAC, and 

to review the absentee voting processes and procedures for overseas and 

uniformed voters. 

Mr. Tatum explained that the three EAC Advisory Boards are the Standards 

Boards, the Board of Advisors, and the Technical Guideline Development 

Committee (TGDC), and they are established by statute. He further 

explained the operating terms and the duties of board members, including 

that there is a federal law that prohibits members from being a lobbyist. 

Mr. Tatum stated that the Act requires a Designated Federal Officer be 

assigned, and currently Commissioner Christy McCormick is the Vice-Chair 

and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Standards Board. 

Commissioner Thomas Hicks is the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for 

the Board of Advisors, and at this point the EAC does not have an officer 

for the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview of EAC Mission & Objectives for 2018 & Beyond (EAC Video) 

A video was shown which describes the purpose and the role of the 

Elections Assistance Commission. 

EAC’s 2018 Campaign (and beyond) Preview 

Mr. Newby thanked the EAC staff for the hard work that was done to prepare 

and organize this meeting. The staff continues to work hard to make the 

EAC a reliable and responsive organization. 

Mr. Newby described what the local voting jurisdiction that might most 

benefit from the services of the EAC might look like. He estimated that is a 

community of perhaps 50 to 150,000 people. The process of sharing best 

practices can help state and local jurisdictions. He encouraged more 

people to get involved with the EAC, and the staff continues to attempt to 

determine what the best way to measure effectiveness might be. 

David Kuennen, Director of Research at EAC spoke about the election 

administration and voting survey. EAVS attempts to gather data with the 

use of surveys, which are sent out to all of the states and territories every 

two years. The survey consists of six sections and contains hundreds of 

questions about many types of election data points. The goal is to attempt 

to make the EAVS more impactful and relevant to members. Attempts 

continue to make filling out the survey easier. Attempts will also be made 

to determine how election technology has shifted over the years and what 

impact that has had on elections. The next iteration of EAVS is close to 

completion. There currently is a one-page fact sheet which provides highlevel data from the EAVS on voter registration turnout, how people voted by 

mode, by mail, etc. For the first time the website contains a data interactive 

which can be an effective tool that allows data to be reviewed on a state or 

local level. Some small changes will be made for the 2018 survey. A 

separate document now exists inside the survey which provides instructions 

for completing the survey. A new outside EAVS contractor is currently out 

for bid. It is anticipated that a new contractor will be in place by June. He 

reported on the research and clearinghouse projects at EAC. The purpose 

of the clearinghouse is to connect members of the election administration 

field to one another to share knowledge and experiences. Clearinghouse 

activities range from large scale convenings of election officials to smaller 

scale efforts like blog posts and white papers. Work has been performed 

on improving voter facing information provided on the website. This can 

assist individuals looking for information on how to register to vote or update 

their registration information. Additional efforts have been placed on adding 

information on voter registration. The main goal is to provide basic 

information to the public and then submit that information to state and local 

election officials. In 2017, the CLEARIE awards were first presented. The 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

award is given for outstanding innovation in election administration, 

improving accessibility for voters with disabilities and best practices for 

recruiting, training and retaining election workers. Two events have been 

planned for the summer of 2018. The first will be in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania on July 12th, which will be a platform for state and local 

election officials from Pennsylvania and around the country to share 

information on how they use data to improve the election process. The 

second will be co-hosted by the Democracy Fund Voice in Washington, 

D.C. and will focus on helping election officials share information on how to 

better serve voters with limited English proficiency. 

Natalie Longwell, Public Affairs Specialist at EAC, explained some of the 

resources the EAC has developed and the growth that has occurred with 

online engagement. The sharing of best practices along with updating and 

professionalizing the look of the website are goals for 2018. Ms. Longwell 

explained the considerable work being done to bring people together to 

share best practices and share lessons learned. 

Brenda Bowser Soder, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at 

EAC, stated that work is being done to reboot the Standards Board 

newsletter in an effort to highlight the accomplishments of the Board. Ms. 

Soder encouraged members to share the security video with stakeholders. 

She mentioned the Women in Election Series that the staff worked on with 

Vice-Chairperson McCormick, which highlighted the work of women from 

across the elections community. She also emphasized the new thematic 

approach to communications that is now being developed. The 

communications office is always available to members whenever people 

need help. 

Mark Listes, the EAC’s Director of Policy, discussed current efforts in long 

term planning and encouraged everyone to let him know how he can assist 

members. He invited everyone to visit the EAC website and review the 

strategic plan and provide feedback. 

Program Amendment Request 

Michael Winn, as Chair of the Resolutions Committee, requested an 

amendment to the program to allow time for presentations of proposed 

resolutions. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a motion to amend the program. Mr. Ritchie 

made the motion and David Beirne seconded the motion. Chairperson 

Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board recessed for lunch at 11:30 a.m. to 1:20 p.m. for a Presentation by 

Robert Kolasky, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for National Protection 

Directorate at the United States Department of Homeland Security. 

Chairman Hicks introduced the lunchtime speaker, Mr. Robert Kolasky, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for National Protection Directorate at the 

United States Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Kolasky began by reminding everyone that in January 2017 the 

Secretary of Homeland Security designated election systems as critical 

infrastructure. Though a controversial decision at the time, the result is that 

the federal government will put more of a coordinated, enhanced and 

prioritized effort toward what can be done to help secure the nation’s 

election systems. Mr. Kolasky described the various ways in which the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to make the nation’s 

elections more secure. The DHS has not yet noticed any new activity 

threatening our elections similar to what took place in 2016. The threat does 

remain however. Improvements have been made in the communications 

between the federal government, the EAC and other similar organizations 

and with state and local elections jurisdictions. It is important to understand 

that it is not as important to stop incidents from occurring, it is important that 

the effects of those incidents be minimized. Mr. Kolasky finished by taking 

questions from the members. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 

Chairperson Johnson introduced Brian Newby, who provided an 

introduction to the VVSG 2.0 presentation by Brian Hancock and Ryan 

Macias, EAC Testing and Certification. 

Brian Hancock explained the VVSG 2.0 structure, consisting of a set of 15 

principles and 53 accompanying guidelines. He defined the on-going task 

of developing the requirements and test assertions. The requirements 

being the technical details that the vendors will use to develop the voting 

systems and the test assertions will be the specifications to test those voting 

systems. Mr. Hancock described the process of VVSG 2.0 and the 

differences between VVSG 2.0 and previous versions of VVSG. 

Ryan Macias provided details about the manuals that are currently used by 

the EAC, the Testing and Certification Manual and the Voting System 

Laboratory Manual, and further explained that these two manuals were 

voted on by previous commissioners. They are the policies that the EAC is 

governed by, and their three-year term is close to expiration. In preparation 

of that expiration, they are being modified to align with the VVSG 2.0 model. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A considerable amount of questions and some opposing concerns were 

expressed to the panel and discussed immediately following the 

presentation. Legal counsel was consulted to provide clarifications. 

Chairperson Johnson asked for all comments regarding the VVSG 

language be submitted in writing. She stated all comments will be added to 

the comments spreadsheet that will be delivered to the EAC for review. 

The Board recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:17 p.m. 

Grants Panel 

Mark Abbott presented an overview of the process to distribute available 

funds and a map detailing the distribution areas. He stated the distribution 

is a population-based formula that has a minimum of $600,000 for territories 

and $3 million for states. He provided a history on HAVA funds and how 

the different funds can be used. 

Mr. Abbott expressed his interest in having the election community and 

stakeholders engaged around this strategically as the money is distributed. 

Chairperson Johnson stated that the Board will distribute a copy of the 

explanation letters that were sent to states. The Board of Advisors will also 

review ways to announce when states receive these funds. 

Election Security Panel 

Chairperson Johnson provided a brief history and an overview introduction 

of the election security panel. 

Presentation Video on Election Security 

Following the election security video, Mark Listes, EAC Director of Policy 

introduced Geoff Hale, Director of the Election Task Force at the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some of he goals of the Election 

Security Panel were to assist in the understanding of the basic terms of 

elections security and definitions of government acronyms. The panel 

finished their presentation with a moderated Q & A session in which all 

those in attendance were encouraged to answer or ask questions regarding 

critical infrastructure and how critical infrastructure applies to cybersecurity 

in general. 

Geoff Hale of DHS stated that in 2017, Jay Johnson, the former Department 

of Homeland Security Secretary, designated election systems as critical 

infrastructure and he recited the official definition of critical infrastructure 

drawn from the USA Patriot Act as: Systems and assets whether physical 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or virtual so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of 

those systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, 

national economic security, national public health or safety or any 

combination of those matters. 

Mr. Hale provided an overview of the focus on the dynamic threat 

environment, both from a cyber perspective and with respect to physical 

vulnerabilities across 16 critical infrastructure sectors. He further explained 

that critical infrastructure also includes venues that serve as public 

gathering places, city squares, our arenas, and all things that are the core 

life in the United States and that remain attractive targets to adversaries. 

He explained critical infrastructure sectors and sub sectors establish both 

sector coordinating councils (SCC) and government coordinating councils 

(GCC). He defined a SCC as being for private sector members largely in 

the elections arena, such as manufacturers of voting systems, database 

vendors, etc. and a GCC, as being for government entities, such as federal, 

state, local, designed to enable interagency and cross-jurisdictional 

coordination. 

Mr. Hale clarified that the critical infrastructure partnership advisory council 

framework is a voluntary framework. It is about bringing together a 

community of owners and operators of critical infrastructure who work 

together to develop strategies for the broader community. They are not 

rules, they are not regulations. They are in the nature of guidance and 

opportunities to enhance the security and resilience of designated critical 

infrastructure, in this case America's election system. He encouraged 

members to locate their connection points either into the Government 

Coordinating Council or in the Sector Coordinating Council, and to be part 

of the process going forward. 

Chairperson Johnson expressed her thoughts and perspectives, along with 

additional history involving the beneficial relationship between the EAC and 

DHS. Several other members provided their insight and experiences as it 

related to the subject. 

Mark Listes reminded all in attendance that the EAC is continuing to post 

new critical infrastructure resources, along with a cybersecurity shared 

dictionary and other resources that help everyone navigate everything from 

terms to new developments on their website at EAC.gov. Panelists 

acknowledged several times that it is challenging, yet very important for 

everyone to become familiar with the terminology, definitions and acronyms 

when dealing with this subject. 

A considerable amount of questions and comments were brought before 

the panel and discussed immediately following the presentation. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miscellaneous Announcements & Business 

Chairperson Johnson requested all members to review the draft resolutions 

and prepare any questions for the originators of those draft resolutions in 

anticipation of a deliberation and voting on those resolutions. 

The meeting recessed at 4:52 p.m. EDT 

Tuesday, April 24 

Chairperson Sarah Ball Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. EDT 

Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order and confirmed that a 

quorum existed. 

A motion was made by Mr. Yaki and seconded by Mr. Winn to amend the 

agenda to move the VVSG section to earlier in the meeting. The motion 

carried by voice vote. 

VVSG Discussion Continued 

Chairperson Johnson read Resolution 2018-01: “Therefore, be it resolved 

that the Board of Advisors recommends to the United States Election 

Assistance Commission to consider the draft VVSG 2.0 principles and 

guidelines for full adoption considering the comments offered by the board 

and that the EAC adopt within the testing and certification program quality 

and program manual a provision providing for the ability of VVSG 2.0 

requirements and test assertions to be updated in the absence of a quorum 

of the EAC commissioners.” The resolution was so moved by Chairperson 

Johnson. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dickson. There was 

considerable discussion by the members. 

There was a call to question the motion by Mr. Yaki and seconded by Ms. 

Lamone. There was some discussion by the members. Chairperson 

Johnson called for a vote. The motion failed. 

Mr. Beirne proposed an amendment to after the semicolon and the 

highlights, striking that and inserting, ‘further we request the EAC to create 

a strategy for the consideration of updates to VVSG requirements and test 

assertions to be updated in the absence of the EAC commissioners or in 

the absence of a quorum of EAC commissioners.” There was considerable 

discussion of the amendment by a number of members. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Beirne made the motion and Mr. Ivey-Soto seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion failed by a vote of 8 to 

13. 

Mr. Ivey-Soto proposed an amendment striking from the resolution “a 

provision providing for the ability of VVSG 2.0 requirements and test 

assertions to be updated in the absence of a quorum of the EAC 

commissioners.” 

Mr. Ivey-Soto made the motion and Mr. Beirne seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion failed by a vote of 2 to 

16. 

A motion was made by Mr. Ivey-Soto to substitute the entirety of the 

Standards Board resolution previously passed by that Board in lieu of the 

current drafted resolution from the VVSG committee. The amendment is as 

follows: Title: Advanced Voluntary Voting System Guidance (VVSG) 2.0. 

Whereas the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an agency of the 

United States federal government created by the Help America Vote Act; 

whereas, the Elections Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines 

Development Committee unanimously voted for approval of the draft of the 

VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines on September 12, 2017; whereas the 

Elections Assistance Commission Board of Advisors VVSG Committee has 

reviewed and commented on the draft VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines 

and submitted those comments to the full board for review and comment, 

now therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Advisors of the Election 

Assistance Commission that Section 1 of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission Board of Advisors recommends to the United 

States Election Assistance Commission that the proposed modifications to 

the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines recommended by the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee on September 12, 2017, be adopted 

by the commission, Section 2, the United States Elections Assistance 

Commission Board of Advisors further recommends to the United States 

Election Assistance Commission that the modifications be designated as 

“Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines 2.0,” to reflect the nature of the 

modifications. Section 3, the United States Elections Assistance 

Commission Board of Advisors further recommends the United States 

Election Assistance Commission in its consideration of the 

recommendations and modifications take into account the following. 

Subsection one, the schedule and procedures to implement Voluntary 

Voting Systems Guidelines 2.0 should be as efficient as possible to ensure 

a smooth transition to the new guidelines. Subsection two, the role of the 

entire membership of the Board of Advisors under HAVA should be 

respected and preserved with regard to the implementation and 

modification of more detailed technical procedures and standards employed 

to conduct the certification of voting systems under Voluntary Voting 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Systems Guidelines 2.0. Section 4, that the Board of Advisors recommends 

the United States Election Assistance Commission to consider the draft of 

VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines for full adoption considering the 

comments offered by the Board, and that the EAC adopt within the testing 

and certification program quality and program manual a provision for the 

ability of VVSG 2.0 requirements and test assertions to be updated in the 

absence of a quorum of EAC commissioners. 

Mr. Ivey-Soto made the motion and Mr. Beirne seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried by a vote 

of 20-1. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote of the original resolution as 

amended. Ms. Johnson made the motion and Mr. Dickson seconded the 

motion. Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried by 

a vote of 21-0. 

Special Recognition 

Greg More announced the death of Congressman Al Swift who was the 

author of the National Voter Registration Act. 

Election Day Procedures 

Richard Pilger, Director of the Election Crime Branch of the United States 

Department of Justice and a member of the Board of Advisors addressed 

the assembly on the role of the federal government in the state and local 

election process. Mr. Pilger emphasized that the Department of Justice 

recognizes the important principle of federalism that constrains the entire 

federal government in the area of elections. Mr. Pilger shared various 

incidents that have occurred where the Department of Justice has 

jurisdiction regarding polling places and where it does not. Federal law 

enforcement officers are not permitted to enter a local polling place so long 

as voting is taking place. In addition, it is important to understand that the 

Department of Justice can not necessarily stop an incident from happening. 

It must, unfortunately let the incident occur and then prosecute. Mr. Pilger 

took numerous questions from members. 

Open Discussion & Resolutions 

Mr. Dickson proposed Resolution 2018-2 which was seconded by Mr. 

Kelley. There was considerable discussion on the resolution. 

Ms. Simons made a motion to amendment the resolution to change the 

resolution section to “be is resolved, that when paper ballots are used every 

voter must be provided a means to mark, verify and cast a ballot privately, 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

independently and accurately.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. 

Stark. There was considerable discussion. 

Ms. Simons made the motion and Mr. Kelley seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion failed by a vote of 7-13. 

One abstention. 

Mr. Stark made a motion to amend the resolution stating that “it does not 

preclude the use of hand marked paper ballots as a component of a voting 

system. The motion was seconded by Mr. Yaki. Discussion followed. The 

amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment. No vote was taken. 

Mr. Dickson made the motion and Mr. Kelley seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote on the Resolution. The motion was 

carried by a vote of 20-1 with one abstention. 

Mr. Stark proposed Resolution 2018-3. The motion was seconded by Ms. 

Simons. Discussion followed. Mr. Ivey-Soto proposed a friendly 

amendment to delete the word ballots. To change the word paper from an 

adjective to a noun. The friendly amendment was accepted. Ms. 

Timmons-Goodson proposed a friendly amendment to change the word 

advise to recommend. The friendly amendment was accepted. 

Mr. Dickson made the motion and Mr. Kelley seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried by a vote 

of 10-8 with four abstentions. 

Mr. Stark proposed Resolution 2018-4. Mr. Yaki proposed a grammatical 

change in the first sentence and a change to say, “not certify.” The changes 

were accepted as friendly amendments. The motion was seconded by Mr. 

Ivey-Soto. Discussion followed. 

Mr. Stark made the motion and Mr. Ivey-Soto seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote on the resolution with the friendly 

amendments. The motion was carried. The motion failed by a vote of 9-11 

with two abstentions. 

Mr. Dickson made a motion to ask the officers of the Advisory Board to send 

a letter to Congress and to the White House requesting a full commission, 

if permissible per the EAC General Counsel. The motion was seconded by 

Mr. Ivey-Soto. Discussion followed. 

Mr. Dickson made the motion and Mr. Ivey-Soto seconded the motion. 

Chairperson Johnson called for a vote. The motion was carried 

unanimously with one abstention. 

13 
 

 

 

 

Welcome & Introduction of New Officers 

Chairman Hicks swore in the new officers of Board of Advisors. 

Plenary Adjournment 

Chairperson Sarah Ball Johnson adjourned the meeting. 

The April 23-24, 2017 meeting of the Board of Advisors adjourned at 12:05 

p.m. EDT 

14 
Meeting Minutes 

United States Election Assistance Commission 

STANDARDS BOARD MEETING 

April 19-20, 2018

Hyatt Regency Coral Gables 

50 Alhambra Plaza 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

 The following are the Minutes of the United States Election Assistance 

Commission (“EAC”) Standards Board held April 19-20, 2018. The meeting 

convened at 8:51 a.m. EDT on Thursday, April 19, 2018, in Coral Gables, Florida 

at Hyatt Regency Coral Gables and adjourned on Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:53 

a.m. EDT. 

Thursday, April 19 

Call to Order 

Chairman J. Bradley King called the meeting to order and welcomed 

participants to Coral Gables, Florida. 

Report of the Proxy Committee 

Gary Poser reported that for this Standards Board meeting, 19 proxies 

were reviewed and approved by the Proxy Committee. 

Report of the Resolutions Committee 

Bradley King reported Resolution 2018-01 has been reviewed by the 

committee and so determined to be in conformity with statute and in 

proper form according to counsel for the EAC. 

Welcome Video from Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to the 

Standards Board of the United States Elections Assistance Commission.

Pledge of Allegiance 

EAC Vice-Chairperson Christy McCormick led all present in the recitation 

of the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Roll Call 

Sally Williams was elected as Secretary pro tem. She called roll for the 

Standards Board and found present: Alaska- Carol Thompson, Proxy for 

(Josie Bahnke); Arkansas- Chad Pekron; Arizona- Reynaldo Valenzuela 

1
Jr., Proxy for (Eric H. Spencer); Colorado- Dwight K. Shellman III, Rudy 

Santos; Connecticut- Peggy Reeves, Timothy DeCarlo; Delaware- Elaine 

Manlove, Howard G. Sholl, Jr.; Guam- Maria I.D. Pangelinan, Joseph D. 

Iseke; Idaho- Patty Weeks, Tim Hurst; Illinois- Lance Gough, Bernadette 

Matthews; Indiana- Bradley King, Proxy for Jim (Silrum),(Carol Morris),

(Doug Sanderson); Iowa- Dennis Parrott, proxy for (Ken Kline); KentuckyKenneth Barger, Proxy for (Jared Dearing); Lousiana- Lynn Jones, Proxy 

for (Kyle Ardoin); Maryland- Nikki Baines Charlson; Michigan- Sally 

Williams, Jan Roncelli; Minnesota- Debby Erickson, Gary Poser, Proxy for 

(Maria Matthews); Mississippi- Hawley Robertson, Baretta Mosely; 

Nebraska- David Shivey, Heather Doxon; Nevada- Justus Wendland, 

Joseph P. Gloria; New Hampshire- Anthony Stevens, Robert Dezmelyk); 

New Jersey- Bob Giles, Proxy for (Stuart Holmes),(Linda Von Nessi),(Neal 

Kelley), (Paul Lux); New Mexico- Kari Fresquez, Dave Kunko; New YorkDouglas A. Kellner, Rachel L. Bledi; North Carolina- Veronica 

Degraffenreid; North Dakota- DeAnn Buckhouse; Oregon- Steven N. 

Trout, Derrin “Dag” Robinson; Pennsylvania- Jonathan Marks; Rhode 

Island- Rob Rock; South Carolina- Marci Andino, Wanda Hemphill; South 

Dakota- Carri Crum, Kristin Gabriel; Tennessee- Mark Goins, Proxy for 

(Lynn Bailey),(Brian Kemp),(John H. Merrill); Texas- Keith Ingram, Dana 

DeBeauvoir; Virgin Islands- Genevieve Whitaker, Proxy for (Fiti Tavai),

(Terri Rethlake), Lisa Harris-Moorhead; Virginia- Greg S. Riddlemoser, 

Chris Piper; Washington- Jerry Pettit; West Virginia- Brittany Westfall, 

Proxy for (Brian Wood); Wisconsin- Barbara K. D. Goeckner, Meagan 

Wolfe; Wyoming- Kai Schon, Jackie R. Gonzalez; Alice Miller; Louise 

Phaneuf; Chad Pekron 

Secretary Williams reported that the Roll Call shows a quorum is present. 

 

Welcoming Remarks from the EAC Commissioners 

EAC Chairman Thomas Hicks welcomed the Standard Boards 

members, especially the new members, to Miami. 

Chairman Hicks mentioned the challenges election officials have faced in 

recent years and that insight about these issues from the Standards Board 

members serves as a key resource to the commission. He talked about 

the public hearings, workshops, round tables and meetings that the EAC 

commissioners conducted in 26 states across the country in 2017 in order 

to expand resources to election officials and voters. Chairman Hicks 

provided a detailed synopsis of the 2018 EAC Summit that was held on 

January 10th in Washington, D.C., which highlighted a spectrum of issues 

that state and local election officials will face as they work to administer a 

secure, accessible, and efficient 2018 Federal Election. Attendees heard 

from keynote speakers and expert panelists who addressed topics such 

as election security, voting accessibility, and how to use election data to 

2
improve the voter experience. He also gave examples of the tools and 

resources that the commission provided to election officials at the summit 

to help strengthen their ability to serve millions of American voters. 

Chairman Hicks expressed the EAC’s commitment to making the $380 

million in 2018 HAVA election funds available as soon as possible to 

support election activities to approve the administration of elections for 

federal offices. 

EAC Vice-Chairperson Christy McCormick welcomed all in attendance 

to Miami and thanked them for their patience and dedication in dealing 

with the government shutdown in early 2018 and for their on-going hard 

work through working with limited resources. Vice-Chair McCormick 

explained that the commission needs to be on guard for any possible 

attempts to interfere with our elections and our democracy and they are 

now required to review everything with an eye towards security. She 

expressed the EAC’s desire to support and assist in any way they can to 

help with all the important tasks for this coming year and that the 

commission is looking forward to hearing the perspectives of all those in 

attendance. Vice-Chair McCormick thanked Robin Sargent for her hard 

work in organizing the Miami Standards and Advisory Board meetings. 

She also thanked all the staff being led by the new Executive Director, 

Brian Newby. 

Introductory Business: 

Approval of Minutes 

Chairman King called for a motion to approve the minutes from the April 

27-28, 2017, meeting of the Standards Board as submitted. Gary Poser 

made the motion and Rudy Santos seconded the motion. Chairman King 

called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 

Adoption of Agenda 

Chairman King called for a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. 

Lisa Moorehead made the motion and Peggy Reeves seconded the 

motion. Chairman King called for a vote. The motion carried 

unanimously. 

Introduction of New Members to the Standards Board 

Chairman King recognized the following new members to the Standards 

Board and asked them to come forward to receive a certificate in 

recognition of their service: Kyle Ardoin, Kenneth Barger, Carri Crum, 

3
Heather Doxon, Lynn Jones, Ken Klein, Jonathan Marks, Lisa Moorehead, 

Chrissy Peters, Jerry Pettit, Chris Piper, Kai Schon, and Meagan Wolfe. 

Overview of VVSG, Bylaws, EAVS, EAC Clearinghouse, and USPS 

Committees 

Bradley King, Bylaws Committee, reported there are no proposed 

amendments nor committee business to transact at this time. 

Sally Williams, United States Postal Service (USPS) Committee, reported 

that the committee has been focused on key messages related to USPS 

issues for 2018 and creating awareness of the useful information about 

key USPS issues and resources available to state and local elections 

officials through a one-page PDF document posted on the EAC website 

that can be downloaded and sent to local officials. 

Greg Riddlemoser, Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) 

Committee, reported there will be a presentation and detailed discussion 

on the new proposed VVSG 2.0 later in the day per the agenda that will 

include staff comments. 

Mark Goins, Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) 

Committee, reported the committee is focused on simplifying the survey 

while maintaining quality and accurate data. 

Genevieve Whitaker, Clearinghouse Committee, reported there have been 

technology issues and challenges, but the committee is focusing on best 

practices and communications with EAC staff and a greater working 

relationship within the committee to strategize the management of the 

clearinghouse going forward. 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Responsibilities and Role of the 

Board Under the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) 

Clifford D. Tatum, EAC General Counsel, presented slides explaining that 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is the framework in which the 

Advisory Boards operate. The EAC Advisory Boards were created by the 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to assist the EAC in developing the 

Voluntary Voting Assistance Guidelines (VVSG), reviewing and 

participating in creating best practices recommendations for the EAC, and 

to review the absentee voting processes and procedures for overseas and 

uniformed voters. 

Mr. Tatum explained that the three EAC Advisory Boards are the 

Standards Boards, the Board of Advisors, and the Technical Guideline 

4
Development Committee (TGDC), and they are established by statute. He 

further explained the operating terms and the duties of board members, 

including that there is a federal law that prohibits members from being a 

lobbyist. 

Mr. Tatum stated that the act requires a Designated Federal Officer be 

assigned and currently, Commissioner Christy McCormick is the ViceChair and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Standards Board. 

Commissioner Hicks is the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the 

Board of Advisors, and at this point the EAC does not have an officer for 

the Technical Guidelines Development Committee. 

Mr. Tatum stated the presentation slides are available for download from 

the website. 

2018 Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) Funds 

Brian Newby, EAC Executive Director and Mark Abbott, EAC Director of 

Grants, conducted a presentation to explain the funds that are being 

distributed due to the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA). 

Mr. Newby stated that the act was passed in March and $380 million was 

provided to the EAC to be distributed in accordance with HAVA section 

101 to improve administration and security in federal elections. 

Mr. Abbott started with a brief history and explanation of what it means to 

have HAVA funds, the guidelines for receiving the funds, drawing down the 

funds, the five-year expiration date on the funds, administrative 

requirements, cost principles, audit requirements and items that are red 

flags to auditors. He explained that when spending plans are submitted, 

they will be reviewed to ensure the plan constitutes improvement to the 

administration of elections and the security programming will be used to 

boost public confidence. 

Mr. Newby stated that although the EAC was allowed 45 days to distribute 

the HAVA funds, the EAC has committed to get it out in 30 days, and 

expressed his gratitude to Mark Abbott, along with other staff members, for 

his hard work that will ensure that 30 day commitment is met. 

Elections Security Panel 

Brian Newby provided an overview introduction of the election security 

panel and the video that was created as a tool to assist with educating 

community members on election security. Mr. Newby also stated the 

video can be downloaded from the EAC website with an accompanying 

5
Leader’s Guide that can be printed to assist in presenting information in 

their communities. 

Presentation Video on Election Security 

Following the election security video, Mark Listes, EAC Director of Policy, 

was joined by Robert Giles of New Jersey, Mark Goins from Tennessee 

and Dave Wulf, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Infrastructure Protection 

from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to present the election 

security panel’s goals, an understanding of the basic terms of elections 

security, and definitions of government acronyms. The panel finished their 

presentation with a moderated Q & A session in which all those in 

attendance were encouraged to answer or ask questions regarding critical 

infrastructure and how critical infrastructure applies to cybersecurity in 

general. 

Dave Wulf of DHS stated that in 2017, Jay Johnson, the former 

Department of Homeland Security Secretary, designated election systems 

as critical infrastructure and proceeded to recite the official definition of 

critical infrastructure drawn from the USA Patriot Act as: Systems and 

assets, whether physical or virtual so vital to the United States that the 

incapacity or destruction of those systems and assets would have a 

debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public 

health or safety, or any combination of those matters. 

Mr. Wulf provided an overview of the focus on the dynamic threat 

environment, both from a cyber perspective and with respect to physical 

vulnerabilities across 16 critical infrastructure sectors. He further 

explained that critical infrastructure also includes venues that serve as 

public gathering places, city squares, our arenas, and all things that are 

the core life in the United States and that remain attractive targets to 

adversaries. He explained critical infrastructure sectors and sub sectors 

establish both sector coordinating councils (SCC) and government 

coordinating councils (GCC). He defined a SCC as being for private 

sector members largely in the elections arena, such as manufacturers of 

voting systems, database vendors, etc. and a GCC, as being for 

government entities, such as federal, state, local, designed to enable 

interagency and cross-jurisdictional coordination. Mr. Wulf pointed out that 

Bob Giles and EAC Chairman Thomas Hicks are both members of the 

GCC executive committee. 

Mr. Wulf clarified that the critical infrastructure partnership advisory council 

framework is a voluntary framework. It is about bringing together a 

community of owners and operators of critical infrastructure who work 

together to develop strategies for the broader community. They are not 

rules, they are not regulations. They are in the nature of guidance and 

6
opportunities to enhance the security and resilience of designated critical 

infrastructure, in this case America's election system. He encouraged 

members to locate their connection points either into the Government 

Coordinating Council or in the Sector Coordinating Council, and to be part 

of the process going forward. 

Mark Listes reminded all in attendance that the EAC is continuing to post 

new critical infrastructure resources, along with a cybersecurity shared 

dictionary and other resources that help everyone navigate everything 

from terms to new developments on their website at EAC.gov. Panelists 

acknowledged several times that it is challenging, yet very important for 

everyone to become familiar with the terminology, definitions and 

acronyms when dealing with this subject. 

A considerable amount of questions and comments were brought before 

the panel and discussed immediately following the presentation. 

The Board recessed for lunch at 11:45 a.m. for a Presentation by the 

Elections & Disaster Recovery Panel, moderated by EAC Vice-Chairperson 

Christy McCormick, including panel members Bob Giles, Walt Latham, 

Genevieve Whitaker, and Michael T. Morley. 

Vice-Chair McCormick opened the discussion with a brief overview of the 

panel and the introduction of the panel members. She invited each 

member to share their bio and personal stories of how disasters and 

recovery plans affected elections and basic life in their states. 

Panel member Michael T. Morley recently authored a Law Review article 

on elections and natural disaster emergencies. He detailed the 

importance of having state emergency statutes in place to insure politically 

charged decisions are not made on the spot in the midst of an emergency, 

without potentially recognizing some of their implications. 

Robert Giles provided his thoughts and insight on the devastation that 

Hurricane Sandy caused in his state of New Jersey. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) Panel 

Chairman J. Bradley King introduced Brian Newby, who detailed the 

background history of the VVSG from its first adoption by the EAC in 

2005, through all prior versions to current date, including VVSG 2.0, which 

has gone through significant development with the TGDC and was voted 

by the TGDC and presented to the Executive Director in the fall of 2017. 

Mr. Newby introduced Brian Hancock and Ryan Macias, EAC Testing and 

Certification; and Greg Riddlemoser to present and answer questions 

7
regarding the VVSG. Brian Hancock explained the VVSG 2.0 structure, 

consisting of a set of 15 principles and 53 accompanying guidelines. He 

defined the on-going task of developing the requirements and test 

assertions. The requirements being the technical details that the vendors 

will use to develop the voting systems and the test assertions being the 

specifications to test those voting systems. Mr. Hancock described the 

process of VVSG 2.0 and the differences between VVSG 2.0 and previous 

versions of VVSG.

Ryan Macias provided details about the manuals that are currently used 

by the EAC, the Testing and Certification Manual and the Voting System 

Laboratory Manual, and further explained that these two manuals were 

voted on by previous commissioners. They are the policies that the EAC 

is governed by, and their three-year term is close to expiration. In 

preparation of that expiration, they are being modified to align with the 

VVSG 2.0 model. 

Greg Riddlemoser thanked all the current VVSG subcommittee members: 

Veronica DeGraffenreid of North Carolina, Robert Dezmelyk of New 

Hampshire, Kari Fresquez of New Mexico, Bob Giles of New Jersey, 

Lance Gough of Illinois, Tim Hurst of Idaho, Keith Ingram of Texas, Paul 

Lux of Florida, Marion Snyder of Pennsylvania, Dwight Shellman of 

Colorado, Steve Trout of Oregon, Ray Valenzuela of Arizona and Brian 

Wood of West Virginia. 

A considerable amount of questions and some opposing concerns were 

expressed to the panel and discussed immediately following the 

presentation. Chairman King reminded membership that as part of the 

deliberation and voting process of Resolution 2018-01 that is scheduled to 

take place this same day, it is appropriate for members to propose 

amendments to either add or delete language to address expressed 

concerns. He further suggested members who have concerns that they 

believe rise to the level of an amendment to compose language to be 

reviewed during that process. 

The Board recessed at 3:15 p.m. and reconvened at 3:50 p.m. 

VVSG Continued and Consideration of Resolution 2018-01 

Chairman Bradley King called for a motion to adopt Resolution 2018-01. 

Greg Riddlemoser made the motion and recited the resolution. Robert 

Giles seconded the motion. Mark Goins requested a roll call vote. 

Chairman King announced at the end of a discussion and consideration 

without objection, a roll call vote will be ordered. Chairman King 

announced the consideration of Resolution 2018-01 to begin. 

8
Robert Giles offered an amendment (amendment #1) to insert new 

language to the resolution that would so read.... “adopt within the testing 

and certification program quality and program manage manual a provision 

providing for the ability of VVSG 2.0 requirements and test assertions to 

be updated in the absence of a quorum of the EAC commissioners.” Gary 

Poser seconded this amendment for consideration. 

Chairman King called for a vote. In the opinion of the Chairman, the ayes 

have it and the motion to adopt amendment #1 was carried. Chairman 

King led discussion to adopt Resolution 2018-01 as now amended. 

After further discussions, Chairman King called for a roll call vote. The 

Secretary reported that the motion received 75 aye votes, four no votes, 

and one abstention. Motion to adopt Resolution 2018-01 as amended 

was carried. 

Miscellaneous Announcements & Business 

Chairman Bradley King called for any further business to come before the 

board, hearing none. He announced the board stands in recess until 

Friday, April 20, 2018. 

The meeting recessed at 4:28 p.m. EDT 

Friday, April 20 

Chairman Bradley King called the meeting to order at 8:21 a.m. EDT 

 

Chairman King reconvened the meeting of the United States Elections 

Assistance Commission Standards Board. 

Executive Committee Report 

Chairman King reminded everyone that the bylaws provide for three 

officers, a Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary who each serve a one-year 

term expiring on April 29, 2018. Mr. King then announced the results of 

the election of new executive committee officers for the coming year. 

Chairman, Greg Riddlemoser of Virginia. Vice-chair, Sally Williams of 

Michigan. Secretary, Reynaldo Valenzuela of Arizona. Chairman King 

asked each person to come forward and address the assembly. 

Mr. Riddlemoser thanked the assembly for asking him to serve. It is Mr. 

Riddlemoser’s hope to continue the work of the VVSG and the TGDC and 

he encourages everyone to contact their member of Congress to ask the 

congressional leadership to appoint people to the current vacancies on the 

9
EAC commission. He looks forward to working with the EAC 

commissioners and staff during the coming year. 

Ms. Williams stated that she is happy to serve as Vice-Chair during the 

coming year. She looks forward to working with the VVSG, and is proud 

to serve alongside Mr. Riddlemoser and Mr. Valenzuela. 

Mr. Valenzuela thanked Chairman King for his service, and he looks 

forward to working with Mr. Riddlemoser and Ms. Williams. Mr. Valenzuela 

stated that he is honored to serve such an amazing consortium of election 

officials. 

Chairman King also announced the election by the Executive Board of 

Reynaldo Valenzuela to serve as Secretary and the election of Genevieve 

Whitaker to serve as Vice-Chair for the current unexpired terms until April 

29, 2018. Mr. King asked Ms. Whitaker to address the assembly. 

Ms. Whitaker thanked her fellow Executive Board members and everyone 

in attendance for the important work that they are engaged in. She also 

thanked the Executive Board for appointing her to the position of ViceChair. She then announced that she will be stepping down from her 

position at the Election Systems in the Virgin Islands, as she is running for 

the Senate. She again expressed her appreciation for all of the work 

performed and she hopes it continues. 

Chairman King thanked those that volunteered to serve on the various 

committees of the Standards Board and asked the chairpersons of the 

committees to announce the names of the new committee members. 

Chairman King began by announcing the members of the Bylaws 

Committee: Bradley King of Indiana, Chair. Members Wanda Hemphill of 

South Carolina. Maria Pangelinan of Guam. Dennis Parrott of Iowa. 

Chris Piper of Virginia. Howard Sholl of Delaware. Brittany Westfall of 

West Virginia. 

Ms. Whitaker announced the members of the Clearinghouse Committee: 

Rudy Santos of Colorado, Chair. Members Joe Gloria of Nevada. Lynn 

Jones of Louisiana. Doug Kellner of New York. Bradley King of Indiana. 

Bernadette Matthews of Illinois. Aulii Tenn of Hawaii. Patty Weeks of 

Idaho. Brittany Westfall of West Virginia. Bradley King will serve as the 

liaison to the executive committee. 

Mark Goins announced the members of the Cybersecurity Committee: 

Mark Goins of Tennessee, Chair. Members Marci Andino of South 

Carolina. Robert Giles of New Jersey. Neal Kelley of California. Bradley 

King of Indiana. Gary Poser of Minnesota. Steven Reed of Alabama. 

10
Greg Riddlemoser of Virginia. Reynaldo Valenzuela of Arizona. Sally 

Williams of Michigan. 

Mr. Goins also announced the members of the Election Administration and 

Voting Survey (EAVS) Committee: Mark Goins of Tennessee, Chair. 

Members Lynn Bailey of Georgia. Nikki Charlson of Maryland. Kristin 

Gabriel of South Dakota. Stuart Holmes of Washington. Keith Ingram of 

Texas. Gary Poser of Minnesota. Jan Roncelli of Michigan. Howard Sholl 

of Delaware. Mishelle Tassinari of Massachusetts. Carol Thompson of 

Alaska. Patricia Wolfe of Ohio. 

Mr. King announced the members of the Executive Director Search 

Committee: Bradley King of Indiana, Chair. Members Josie Bahnke of 

Alaska. Dana Corson of Montana. Carri Crum of South Dakota. Steve 

Harsman of Ohio. Rob Rock of Rhode Island. Jan Roncelli of Michigan. 

Gary Poser announced the members of the Nominating Committee: Gary 

Poser of Minnesota, Chair. DeAnn Buckhouse of North Dakota. Steve 

Harsman of Ohio. Rob Rock of Rhode Island. Eric Spencer of Arizona. 

Mr. Poser also announced the members of the Proxy Committee: Gary 

Poser of Minnesota, Chair. Members Marci Andino of South Carolina. 

Timothy DeCarlo of Connecticut. Elaine Manlove of Delaware. Patricia 

Wolfe of Ohio. 

Mr. King announced the members of the Resolutions Committee: Bradley 

King of Indiana, Chair. Members Marci Andino of South Carolina. Dana 

Debeauvoir of Texas. Lisa Harris Moorehead of Virgin Islands. Holly 

Robertson of Washington. 

Mr. King also announced that the representatives to the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) will be Robert Giles of New 

Jersey and Greg Riddlemoser of Virginia. 

Sally Williams announced the members of the United States Postal 

Service (USPS) Committee: Sally Williams of Michigan, Chair. Members 

Josie Bahnke of Alaska. Kenny Barger of Kentucky. Barbara Goeckner of 

Wisconsin. Jackie Gonzales of Wyoming. Bradley King of Indiana. Maria 

Pangelinan of Guam. Sandy Pinsonault of Vermont. Peggy Reeves of 

Connecticut. Derrin Robinson of Oregon. Justus Wendland of Nevada. 

Mr. Riddlemoser announced the members of the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG) Committee: Greg Riddlemoser of Virginia, Chair. 

Members Veronica DeGraffenreid of North Carolina. Robert Dezmelyk of 

New Hampshire. Heather Doxon of Nebraska. Kari Fresquez of New 

Mexico. Robert Giles of New Jersey. Lance Gough of Illinois. Tim Hurst 

11
of Idaho. Keith Ingram of Texas. Paul Lux of Florida. Jonathan Marks of 

Pennsylvania. Dwight Shellman of Colorado. Steve Trout of Oregon. 

Reynaldo Valenzuela of Arizona. Brian Wood of West Virginia. 

Committee Meeting Breakouts 

Mr. King announced the beginning of committee meeting breakout 

sessions and invited non-committee members to attend any meeting they 

may choose. There will also be an open mic session with the 

commissioners that may also be attended. 

The Standards Board was then recessed at 8:40 a.m. EDT 

Committee Reports 

Chairman King reconvened the meeting of the Standards Board at 9:47 

a.m. EDT and asked for committee reports. 

Bylaws Committee: Chairman King reported that the members discussed 

the structure and role of the Bylaws Committee. Regarding amendments 

to the bylaws, they are considered by the entire membership after a 

solicitation is sent out inviting any member to submit proposed 

amendments. They are then considered by the full membership and 

require a supermajority to pass. There was discussion regarding a 

potential amendment to address the succession of officers to make certain 

that there is a procedure in place to ensure there is always an officer who 

is available to act on behalf of the board. 

United States Postal Service Committee: Ms. Williams reported that 

committee members welcomed their two new members. Members 

reviewed some of the work performed previously by the committee. The 

members heard an update from Tammy Patrick of the Democracy Fund. 

The update included information about an upcoming USPS forum meeting 

which will take place in San Antonio, Texas next month. One of the days 

of the forum will be devoted to election issues. 

EAVS Committee: Mr. Goins reported that there was consideration of 

forming a working group to look at section A. The committee would like to 

review whether EAVS is getting the right data to ensure that improvements 

can be made. Consideration is also being given to updating section A to 

incorporate OVR and automatic voter registration. 

Clearinghouse Committee: Mr. Santos reported that Mr. Gloria was 

appointed Vice-Chair and Mr. Kunko was appointed Secretary. The 

committee plans to meet bimonthly and emphasize attempting to educate 

12
election officials across the county who are not involved with the election 

center or the EAC. 

VVSG Committee: Mr. Riddlemoser reported that the committee hopes to 

hold monthly webinars. 

Overview of EAC Mission & Objectives for 2018 & Beyond (EAC Video) 

A video was shown which describes the purpose and the role of the 

Elections Assistance Commission. 

EAC’s 2018 Campaign (and beyond) Preview 

Mr. Newby thanked the EAC staff for the hard work that was done to 

prepare and organize this meeting. The staff continues to work hard to 

make the EAC a reliable and responsive organization. 

Mr. Newby described what the local voting jurisdiction that might most 

benefit from the services of the EAC might look like. He estimated that is 

a community of perhaps 50 to 150,000 people. The process of sharing 

best practices can only help state and local jurisdiction. He encouraged 

more people to get involved with the EAC. Staff continues to attempt to 

determine what the best way to measure effectiveness might be. 

Sean Greene, Director of Research of the EAC spoke about the election 

administration and voting survey. EAVS attempts to gather data with the 

use of surveys, which are sent out to all of the states and territories every 

two years. The survey consists of six sections and contains hundreds of 

questions about many types of election data points. The goal is to attempt 

to make the EAVS more impactful and relevant to members. Attempts 

continue to make filling out the survey easier. Attempts will also be made 

to determine how election technology has shifted over the years and what 

impact that has had on elections. The next iteration of EAVS is close to 

completion. There currently is a one-page fact sheet which provides highlevel data from the EAVS on voter registration turnout, how people voted 

by mode, by mail, etc. For the first time the website contains a data 

interactive which can be an effective tool which allows data to be reviewed 

on a state or local level. Some small changes will be made for the 2018 

survey. A separate document now exists inside the survey which provides 

instructions for completing the survey. A new outside EAVS contractor is 

currently out for bid. It is anticipated that a new contractor will be in place 

by June. The survey has changed significantly since the survey began in 

2004. Mr. Greene asked for input regarding improvement to the questions 

currently asked on the survey. Any input by members is greatly 

appreciated. Mr. Greene concluded his comments by announcing that he 

will be leaving his position with the EAC in June. 

13
David Kuennen, Senior Research Program Specialist at EAC, reported on 

the research and clearinghouse projects at EAC. The purpose of the 

clearinghouse is to connect members of the election administration field to 

one another to share knowledge and experience. Clearinghouse activities 

range from large scale convenings of election officials to smaller scale 

efforts like blog posts and white papers. Work has been performed on 

improving voter facing information provided on the website. This can 

assist individuals looking for information on how to register to vote or 

update their registration information. Additional efforts have been placed 

on adding information on voter registration. The main goal is to provide 

basic information to the public and then submit that information to state 

and local election officials. In 2017 the CLEARIE awards were first 

presented and have continued since then. The awards are given for 

outstanding innovation in election administration, improving accessibility 

for voters with disabilities and best practices for recruiting, training and 

retaining election workers. Two events have been planned for the summer 

of 2018. The first will be in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 12th, which 

will be a platform for state and local election officials from Pennsylvania 

and around the country to share information on how they use data to 

improve the election process. The second will be co-hosted by the 

Democracy Fund Voice in Washington, D.C. and will focus on helping 

election officials share information on how to better serve voters with 

limited English proficiency. 

Natalie Longwell, Public Affairs Specialist at EAC, explained some of the 

resources the EAC has developed and the growth that has occurred with 

online engagement. The sharing of best practices along with updating 

and professionalizing the look of the website are goals for 2018. Ms. 

Longwell explained the considerable work being done to bring people 

together to share best practices and share lessons learned. 

Brenda Bowser Soder, Director of Communications and Public Affairs at 

EAC, stated that work is being done to reboot the Standards Board 

newsletter in an effort to highlight the accomplishments of the Board. Ms. 

Soder encouraged members to share the security video with stakeholders. 

She mentioned the Women in Election Series that the staff worked on with 

Vice-Chairperson McCormick, which highlighted the work of women from 

across the elections community. She also emphasized the new thematic 

approach to communications that is now being developed. The 

communications office is always available to members whenever people 

need help. 

Mark Listes, the EAC’s Director of Policy, discussed current efforts in long 

term planning and encouraged everyone to let him know how he can 

14
assist members. He invited everyone to visit the EAC website and review 

the strategic plan and provide feedback. 

Mr. Newby thanked Mr. Greene for his service and wished him well. He 

then asked for a round of applause for Mr. Greene. Mr. Newby then 

opened the floor to questions. 

Mr. Riddlemoser was concerned about the risk of users of the website 

clicking on links that might lead to other websites that contain false 

information. Ms. Soder acknowledged that Mr. Riddlemoser made a valid 

point. She stated that they are aware that other websites can have stale 

and/or false information and they will be sensitive to this moving forward. 

Ms. Westfall asked when members will be informed of any new questions 

on the EAVS survey in order to prepare local jurisdictions for the changes. 

Mr. Greene responded by stating that there will be no new questions for 

the 2018 survey, only some formatting and language changes. Mr. 

Greene acknowledged that there will be changes in the future and he is 

aware of the members need for lead time if significant changes are made, 

or if additional questions are included. 

Ms. DeGraffenreid complimented the staff on the quality of the video 

shown the previous day. She believes the video can be shown in any 

jurisdiction and will be a great tool. 

Mr. Dezmelyk asked if there could be different versions of the video 

depending on the needs of individual jurisdictions. Mr. Newby said this 

was anticipated and that they may be able to create a generic version by 

removing certain portions. 

Ms. Williams asked if members could get a copy of the video. Ms. Soder 

stated that she would be happy to work with any jurisdiction and try to 

develop something that will work for most officials. 

Mr. Newby again complimented the staff of the EAC. He pointed out that 

there are certain risks involved with working with the EAC, but he greatly 

appreciates their efforts. He then asked everyone to please let him or the 

staff know if there is anything that they can do to help. 

Chairman King thanked the panelists for presenting valuable information 

to everyone. 

Additional Announcements & Business 

15
Chairman King then welcomed two new members to the board, Secretary 

of State Mark Martin of Arkansas and DeAnn Buckhouse, Election 

Coordinator of North Dakota. Both were presented with certificates. 

Chairman King reminded everyone that at some point after the meeting an 

email will be sent out regarding post meeting documentation. Everyone 

was asked to anticipate receiving the email and to respond to it. 

Chairman King then asked if there were any other announcements or 

further business to conduct before the Standards Board meeting is 

adjourned for the day. Seeing none, he recognized Secretary Martin for a 

motion to adjourn and then recognized Mr. Riddlemoser for a second to 

that motion. 

Adjournment 

A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Martin and was seconded by Mr. 

Riddlemoser. 

The motion carried on a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. 

The April 19-20, 2018 meeting of the Standards Board adjourned at 10:53 

a.m. EDT 

16
1

Meeting Minutes

United States Election Assistance Commission

PUBLIC MEETING

April 10, 2019

149 Union Avenue

Continental Ballroom (Mezzanine Level)

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) held April 10, 2019. The meeting convened at 

1:13 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, in Memphis, Tennessee, at The 

Peabody Memphis and adjourned at 3:31 p.m.

PUBLIC MEETING

Call to Order

Chairwoman Christy McCormick called the meeting to order at 1:13 p.m.

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statements of Commissioners

Chairwoman Christy McCormick expressed her excitement at having a full 

complement of Commissioners for the first time in many years and noted 

that the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) will be out for public 

comment until May 29, and urged those interested in filing to do so.

Vice Chair Benjamin Hovland was pleased to have a full quorum of 

Commissioners as well, and explained that, just days after being sworn in, 

all four Commissioners unanimously voted to start the 90-day comment 

period on Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0. Vice Chair Hovland 

acknowledged all the great work done by various organizations to make 

the comment period possible.

Commissioner Thomas Hicks congratulated Chairwoman McCormick on 

becoming Chair and welcomed Commissioner Palmer and Commissioner 

Hovland to their new positions. Commissioner Hicks noted the importance 

of VVSG 2.0 and that he looks forward to hearing from the witnesses on 

how the Commission may best move forward with its implementation.

Commissioner Donald Palmer thanked Chairwoman McCormick, staff, and 

NIST in their work to complete VVSG 2.0

Panel I – Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Version 2.0 History and 

Comments
2

Chairwoman McCormick introduced and welcomed the following panelists:

Brian Newby, Executive Director, EAC; and Ryan Macias, Acting Director 

of Testing and Certification, EAC.

Executive Director Brian Newby addressed the Commission to provide 

testimony regarding the history and background of VVSG and explained 

each witness's role in the day's meeting. Mr. Newby discussed upcoming 

hearings and further opportunities for public comment.

Acting Director Ryan Macias addressed the Commission to provide 

testimony regarding the Testing and Certification program at EAC and its 

role in developing VVSG. Mr. Macias expressed his appreciation to the 

Commissioners for their work in the development of VVSG 2.0 and 

provided background and history on its development, including the 

challenges of the Commission losing its quorum and thus the process 

halting, as well as detailing the substance of public comments received to 

date.

Questions and Answers:

In response to Vice Chair Hovland's inquiry as to finalizing the 

requirements, test assertions, and timeline, Mr. Macias explained that he 

would be giving a full presentation April 11, 2019, at the following day's 

hearing and gave an estimated timeline of 60 days after finalization of 

outstanding items of the requirements.

Commissioner Hicks inquired into the public's participation in the process, 

to which Mr. Macias explained the involvement of working groups and the 

public's ability to develop these principles and guidelines to where they are 

today, in conjunction with the requirements and test assertions. 

Commissioner Hicks commented on the dearth of public comments and 

opined that there may be so few because of the length of time the public 

has had to comment, to which Mr. Macias agreed. Mr. Macias explained 

that vendors and manufacturers have been involved in the public working 

groups as well.

In response to Chairwoman McCormick's inquiry as to vendors' input and 

manufacturers' concerns regarding VVSG 2.0, Mr. Newby explained that 

manufacturers don't know what to manufacture without better-articulated 

test assertions and requirements. Mr. Macias added that manufacturers' 

public comments center around language ambiguity and that designing 

systems is difficult without the specific requirements currently with the 

Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) and test 

assertions. Chairwoman McCormick inquired as to the length of the 
3

process and that the EAC may not see any new systems until 2020 or 

2021.

Commissioner Palmer inquired as to manufacturers' ability and willingness 

to update to VVSG 2.0, to which Mr. Macias explained that the public 

working groups and test assertions have cleared up some ambiguity on 

where the requirements are headed, unlike in VVSG 1.0. Mr. Newby 

opined that moving manufacturers to VVSG 2.0 would be easier if there 

were no more enhancements or changes to VVSG 1.0 and by making 

VVSG 2.0 a good business proposition.

Chairwoman McCormick inquired of Mr. Macias as to why systems are not 

being brought into VVSG 1.1 since it's been available for over four years, 

to which Mr. Macias explained that, while he can't speak for the 

manufacturers, he has heard that it's costly to upgrade and make 

modifications to current systems, and that if VVSG 2.0 is available, the 

manufacturers want to bypass VVSG 1.1 directly to VVSG 2.0. Mr. Macias 

went on to analogize Microsoft XP's obsolescence as a viable option to 

compel manufacturers to upgrade to VVSG 2.0, and that he believes 

manufacturers see the need to upgrade due to new security and 

accessibility requirements.

Panel II – Development of Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0

Chairwoman McCormick introduced and welcomed the second panel of 

witnesses: Mary Brady, Manager, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology; Greg Riddlemoser, Chair, EAC Standards Board; Michael 

Yaki, Vice Chair, EAC Board of Advisors; and Mark Goins, Coordinator of 

Elections, State of Tennessee, and former Chair, EAC Standards Board.

Ms. Mary Brady addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding background on VVSG versions, actions that led to a new 

structure for the VVSG, and steps that were taken to utilize nearly 500 

experts from the election community in the development of the VVSG 2.0.

Mr. Greg Riddlemoser addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the involvement of the public working groups, the TGDC, the 

Standards Board, and the Board of Advisors to develop VVSG 2.0, but 

focused specifically on the role of the Standards Board.

Mr. Michael Yaki addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the processes of the Board of Advisors, adoption of resolutions 

of support, as well as issues of disability access and auditability. Mr. Yaki 

expressed the importance of every vote counting and that Americans need 

to have faith in our voting systems.
4

Mr. Mark Goins addressed the Commission to provide testimony regarding

the makeup of the Standards Board and its role in the development of 

VVSG 2.0, as well as his experience in Tennessee in working with the 

EAC and encouraged the EAC to continue the same process to develop 

the best guidelines possible to certify voting equipment.

Questions and Answers:

In response to Vice Chair Hovland's inquiry as to whether the VVSG 2.0 

effort is a significant step forward to modernize voting technology and to 

bring these standards more into line with other industries, Ms. Brady 

responded that the VVSG 2.0 encapsulates many of the changes that 

have occurred in the security community over the last 10 years and that 

new auditing techniques will be possible under this new paradigm. Vice 

Chair Hovland asked Ms. Brady to clarify NIST's work on the requirements 

and test assertions, to which Ms. Brady replied that the vast majority of the 

requirements are done and that NIST is in discussions with the EAC of 

aspects of VVSG 2.0 that may be better placed in the EAC policy 

manuals. Ms. Brady went on to explain the role of the test laboratories.

Commissioner Hicks inquired of Ms. Brady whether the quality of the test 

assertions will be affected by a third laboratory dropping out of the 

process, to which Ms. Brady responded that NIST has historically had only 

two laboratories, and so this would not affect the quality of the test 

assertions moving forward. Commissioner Hicks then inquired about Ms. 

Brady's impression of the 1,000 individuals working on the new principle 

and guidelines, to which Ms. Brady shared that, while discussions in the 

public working groups have been sometimes challenging, overall it has 

been worthwhile.

Chairwoman McCormick followed up on Commissioner Hicks' inquiry with 

a question as to whether disagreements in the public working groups were 

over principles and guidelines or over requirements, to which Ms. Brady 

responded that the temporary shutdown of the public working groups were

necessary to strengthen NIST's ethics rules for participation in the working 

groups, and that the problems stemmed primarily from discussions during 

the requirements development process.

Commissioner Palmer inquired of Ms. Brady as to her belief that 

manufacturers will participate in the implementation of VVSG 2.0, to which 

Ms. Brady responded that, like Mr. Macias, she cannot speak for the 

manufacturers, but that manufacturers have been participating in the 

discussions and she is optimistic that they will be strong partners in VVSG 

2.0. Commissioner Palmer then asked about accessibility technologies 

that may be available in VVSG 2.0, to which Ms. Brady responded that 

accessibility is important but that security is as well, and one shouldn't be 
5

a tradeoff for another. Commissioner Palmer then expressed his 

appreciation that the development of requirements is 90 percent complete 

and inquired as to the laboratories' input in that process. Ms. Brady 

responded that NIST should reach out to engage the laboratories in 

smaller group discussions to hash out any particular issues that they see 

in terms of being able to build voting systems before requirements are 

finalized.

Chairwoman McCormick followed up on Commissioner Palmer's question 

with an inquiry about keeping costs under control so that manufacturers 

are able to meet the requirements in a cost-efficient way so that 

jurisdictions can afford to buy new voting systems under VVSG 2.0, given 

election funding issues, to which Mr. Yaki responded about the importance 

of all stakeholders communicating the need to invest in VVSG 2.0.

Chairwoman McCormick went on to comment about the possibility of 

dissociating the requirements from the higher-level principles and 

guidelines may affect the involvement of the Standards Board and the 

Board of Advisors in the future and asked the panel their perspective. Mr. 

Goins responded that the Standards Board must not be cut out of the 

process. Mr. Riddlemoser responded that there has to be a way to 

leverage innovation and agility and that this paradigm, properly 

implemented, is one where the principles and guidelines are exactly that 

and not be changed every several years. Mr. Yaki responded that he 

believes the Board of Advisors' role is embedded in the charter and statute 

of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and that staff will certainly be 

involved in the rollout.

Chairwoman McCormick followed up on the comments by the witnesses 

with an inquiry about the Commission's role if there is no need for another 

VVSG for many years and if it's just staff updating the requirements and 

no vote by the Commission, to which Mr. Riddlemoser responded that the 

EAC will need to continually recommend things to the boards for advice

and that the EAC is an integral part of the process as vendors create new 

products. Mr. Yaki commented that the EAC's policy-debate role is vital to 

the process. All panelists then agreed that the EAC's vote on requirements 

constitutes policy.

Commissioner Hicks pointed out that EAC is involved in much more than 

just VVSG, activities such as cybersecurity, voter registration, and 

election-night reporting and that VVSG, while important, is just one aspect 

of EAC's work.

Commissioner Hicks then went on to inquire of Mr. Goins about 

Tennessee's purchase of new voting equipment, $7.5 million allocated 

from Congress, and the need for more funding, to which Mr. Goins replied 
6

that new voting equipment will be purchased with part of the $7.5 million. 

Commissioner Hicks then commented that States have said they could 

use additional funding apart from the $380 million given out last year by 

Congress. Mr. Goins expressed concern about sunsetting equipment and 

voter confidence and then went on to detail Tennessee's plans regarding 

new equipment purchases.

Commissioner Hicks made a further comment concerning security of 

elections and that he wants to ensure that, as VVSG 2.0 is implemented, 

that accessibility and security are not mutually exclusive.

Vice Chair Hovland inquired of the panelists whether they agree that the 

EAC is at its best when it identifies areas of our decentralized system that 

lend themselves to these economies of scale or where there's an ability to 

believe from Federal involvement, to which Mr. Goins and Mr. 

Riddlemoser agreed and expounded on EAC's good work and importance.

Vice Chair Hovland then pointed out that the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines are voluntary, and so the full value of them is only realized if 

the States and jurisdictions use them and adopt them. Mr. Riddlemoser 

opined that, once the manufacturers have started making products against

VVSG 2.0, that both States and locals will embrace VVSG 2.0. Mr. Goins 

pointed out that requirements should not be put forward that 

manufacturers can't meet.

Panel III - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0

Chairwoman McCormick introduced and welcomed the third panel of 

witnesses: Edward Perez, Global Director of Technology Development, 

OSET Institute; Meagan Wolfe, Administrator for the State of Wisconsin 

Elections Commission, and Chief Election Official for the State of 

Wisconsin; and Rob Rock, Director of Elections for Rhode Island 

Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea.

Mr. Edward Perez addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding three topics that the OSET Institute has determined to be critical 

to the assurance that VVSG 2.0 is a success in the facilitation of critical 

innovations for high-confidence elections: ongoing flexibility in the

understanding of the term voting system, component-level certification and 

common data standards to support interoperability, and enhanced agility 

in the Federal certification process to meet rapidly changing cybersecurity 

threats. Mr. Perez explained that the OSET Institute believes that the 

VVSG 2.0 and the EAC Federal certification program must support agile 

updates and upgrades to our election infrastructure to afford it the 

verifiability, accuracy, security, and transparency essential to free and fair 
7

elections, elections where ballots are counted as cast, and where 

confidence in the outcomes is high.

Ms. Meagan Wolfe addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the adoption of the VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines and the 

deficits of the current EAC standards. Ms. Wolfe urged the Commission to 

allow the EAC Testing and Certification staff the authority to approve their 

requirements and test assertions independent of the Commission and to 

include a mechanism for approval absent a quorum or in the case of a 

deadlock of the Commission.

Mr. Rob Rock addressed the Commission to provide testimony regarding

the importance of the principles and guidelines of the VVSG 2.0 and 

suggested that the requirements and test assurance of the systems 

should be a responsibility of the EAC Testing and Certification staff or that 

there should be a mechanism by which future iterations of the VVSG can 

move forward in the absence of a quorum or in the case of a deadlock 

vote by the Commission to ensure that future voting systems receive 

proper vetting before being released.

Questions and Answers:

Commissioner Palmer asked Mr. Perez how he would frame component 

testing within the existing structure of HAVA, to which Mr. Perez 

responded that security is important and a ballot design software layout 

tool could be useful and that a component-level certification regime is 

going to rest heavily on the decisions that the States want to make.

Commissioner Hicks inquired of Mr. Perez about DARPA possibly making 

a system and then his thoughts on the Prime III system in New 

Hampshire, to which Mr. Perez opined about the value of DARPA, with the 

support of the Federal Government, treating this as highest-level critical 

democracy infrastructure.

Vice Chair Hovland followed up on Commissioner Palmer's inquiry about 

component testing and whether Mr. Perez makes a distinction between 

the system allowing for individual component testing or if a jurisdiction 

brings a full system that has interoperability so that it can be made up of 

different components, in which Mr. Perez responded he appreciates both 

of those scenarios.

Vice Chair Hovland inquired of Ms. Wolfe whether she believes the focus 

should be more on the Commission having a quorum or the Commission 

having deadlock issues, to which Ms. Wolfe replied both are important and 

that ideally the Commission would be able to approve changes in a timely 

manner.
8

Commissioner Hicks followed up on Vice Chair Hovland's inquiry 

regarding the quorum with a comment that he believes the process is 

working better now than in the past. He commented on his appreciation for 

Ms. Wolfe's testimony and comments and that he and his fellow 

Commissioners will take them under advisement.

Chairwoman McCormick reiterated a question to a previous panel in 

asking whether requirements for the voting systems constitute policy, to 

which Ms. Wolfe demurred and wasn't sure of the importance of making 

such a definition.

Commissioner Hicks inquired of Mr. Rock to elaborate on the difference 

between a nonvote by the Commission and a deadlock vote, to which Mr. 

Rock suggested that there be a way to move forward when VVSGs need 

to be updated in the event of a deadlock vote by the Commission or a 

quorum not being established.

Chairwoman McCormick followed up on Commissioner Hicks' inquiry by 

asking whether Mr. Rock proposes the Commission set aside 

congressional statute to move forward in the case of a deadlock or nonquorum, to which Mr. Rock suggested to put a mechanism in place to 

circumvent a deadlock or non-quorum.

Commissioner Palmer then inquired of Mr. Rock that if there was a 

deadlock of the Commission on certain requirements which may involve 

accessibility, that a staff member of the EAC should just make that 

decision, to which Mr. Rock reiterated a request that there be a 

mechanism in place or an appeal process to circumvent the Commission if 

such were to happen.

Closing Remarks

Chairwoman McCormick expressed her appreciation to the panelists for 

their testimony and time, and urged other members of the public to utilize 

the public comment process to make further comments to the VVSG 2.0 

principles and guidelines document that is open for public comment until 

May 29th.

Adjournment

Chairwoman McCormick made a motion to adjourn the public meeting,

which was seconded by Commissioner Donald Palmer.

The Public Meeting of the Election Assistance Commission adjourned at 

3:31 p.m.
 

 

 

 

Meeting Minutes
 

United States Election Assistance Commission
 

PUBLIC MEETING
 

May 20, 2019
 

1335 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) held May 20, 2019. The meeting convened at 

1:35 p.m. on Monday, May 20, 2019, in Silver Spring, Maryland, and adjourned 

at 3:52 p.m. 

PUBLIC MEETING 

Call to Order 

Chairwoman Christy McCormick called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. 

Pledge of Allegiance 

Chairwoman McCormick led all present in the recitation of the Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

Roll Call 

Chair McCormick called roll and found present Vice Chair Benjamin 

Hovland, Commissioner Donald Palmer, and Commissioner Thomas 

Hicks and declared a quorum present. 

Adoption of the Agenda 

Chairwoman McCormick called for a motion to approve the agenda, as 

submitted. After being seconded by Commissioner Palmer, the motion 

carried unanimously. 

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statements of Commissioners 

Chairwoman Christy McCormick thanked everyone for their attendance at 

the Election Assistance Commission's third public hearing regarding the 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.0 and explained that the 

public comment period will end on May 29, 2019, and urged those still 

interested in filing to do so by that date. 

Vice Chair Benjamin Hovland outlined briefly what was discussed at the 

previous two public hearings in Memphis and Salt Lake City and thanked 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all who worked on the VVSG 2.0 for the past several years and also 

reminded anyone interested in filing public comments to do so by May 29, 

2019. Vice Chair Hovland expressed his appreciation to the witnesses for 

their attendance. 

Commissioner Donald Palmer asked anyone with input into the VVSG 2.0 

to please provide their comments by the deadline as well in order to 

assure correct implementation. 

Commissioner Thomas Hicks thanked the Commissioners for the three 

public hearings and specifically expressed his appreciation for the hard 

work of Brian Hancock, Jessica Myers, and Ryan Macias. Commissioner 

Hicks congratulated Jerome Lovato on his new position as Testing and 

Certification Director and went on to reiterate the Commission's desire for 

public comments, the 1,200 comments received thus far, and again 

mentioned the May 29 deadline. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Version 2.0 Comments 

Chairwoman McCormick introduced and welcomed Paul Pate, the Iowa 

Secretary of State and President-elect of the National Association of 

Secretaries of State (NASS). 

Secretary Paul Pate addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the Iowa Secretary of State's position on the development and 

implementation of VVSG 2.0. He explained that his remarks represent 

only his role as Iowa Secretary of State and not the National Association 

of Secretaries of State. 

Secretary Pate expressed his appreciation to the EAC and Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) for working with Iowa and the other States to 

protect the integrity of elections, which helped ensure a secure 2018 

election. Secretary Pate expressed his concern about the structure of the 

VVSG document and how quickly changes can be made to update the 

components of the VVSG as needed, especially in light of the unknown 

future cyber threats. 

Secretary Pate agreed with the proposed VVSG 2.0 guidelines but was 

concerned about the flexibility and adaptability of requirements, especially 

if there happens to be a lack of quorum. Another issue raised by Secretary 

Pate included the time limit of disbursement of Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) funds. Secretary Pate explained that, as Iowa Secretary of State, 

he will be asking Congress to assure that the EAC will be fully staffed and 

adequately funded, assure that EAC maintains a continuous quorum, and 

find ways and resources to bring additional testing labs into the election 

space. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

Questions and Answers: 

In response to Chairwoman Christy McCormick's inquiry as to what kind of 

voting systems are used in Iowa, Secretary Pate responded that Iowa is a 

paper-ballot State, the local county jurisdictions pay for the voting systems 

with the exception of the initial HAVA funding, and Secretary Pate assured 

Chair McCormick that their systems are secure because they are paper 

ballots and Iowa conducts post-election audits. 

Vice Chair Benjamin Hovland asked Secretary Pate to comment on his 

experience as Secretary before and after EAC's existence, to which 

Secretary Pate explained that the major difference is the level of cyber 

threat that exists now and that the EAC will be a valuable partner in 

ensuring the security of elections. 

Commissioner Donald Palmer asked Secretary Pate about the accessible 

voting equipment used in Iowa, to which Secretary Pate responded that he 

would be happy to send the Commission a complete list at a later date. 

Commissioner Palmer then inquired as to the HAVA funds provided to 

Iowa, and Secretary Pate explained that those funds were provided 

directly to the counties based on a formula. Commissioner Palmer asked 

Secretary Pate which of the principles he believes the Commission should 

be most focused on, and Secretary Pate responded that the language 

may be ambiguous, the absence of a quorum needs to be addressed, and 

the ability of the Commission to respond quickly to changes is important. 

Commissioner Thomas Hicks followed up on Commissioner Palmer's 

inquiry about counties paying for voting equipment rather than the State, 

to which Secretary Pate reiterated that is indeed true with the exception of 

the HAVA funds distributed some years back but that the cyber training 

and support systems are being covered by the State. Commissioner Hicks 

then asked whether the 5 percent match from the $380 million 

appropriated by Congress came from counties or the State, to which 

Secretary Pate responded that the 5 percent match came from the State. 

Chairwoman McCormick followed up with a question regarding the oldest 

of all voting equipment in Iowa, to which Secretary Pate responded 10 or 

15 years old. 

Commissioner Hicks asked whether different accessibility standards could 

be tested at different labs depending on expertise, and Secretary Pate 

responded that any option that affords greater access and faster response 

should be considered. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel of Technical Experts – Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 

Chairwoman McCormick introduced and welcomed the second panel of 

witnesses: Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Chief Technologist and Director of the 

Internet Architecture Project, the Center for Democracy and Technology; 

Traci Mapps, Director of Operations at SLI Compliance; and Jack Cobb, 

Laboratory Director at Pro V&V. 

Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the Center for Democracy and Technology's perspective and 

important issues in the VVSG 2.0 process. Dr. Hall explained that the 

most critical aspect of developing and adopting the VVSG 2.0 is the need 

to design it to be flexible and agile even when a quorum doesn't exist. Dr. 

Hall suggested that the EAC define a separate process that outlines 

ongoing and regular public comment for VVSG requirements and a 

mechanism for members of the TGDC and the EAC to flag specific 

requirements that might require a Commission deliberation, discussion, or 

vote. Dr. Hall provided some suggestions on transitioning between VVSG 

testing regimes, adversarial testing and vulnerability handling, the 

consideration of hiring a security testing program evaluator, and the critical 

areas that exist outside the scope of the VVSG. 

Ms. Traci Mapps addressed the Commission to provide testimony 

regarding the proposed VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines from a Voting 

System Test Laboratory's (VSTL) standpoint. Ms. Mapps outlined SLI 

Compliance's role in Federal certification testing of voting systems, which 

includes functional testing, usability and accessibility, hardware and 

software analysis, telecommunications, security, quality assurance, and 

configuration management audits. Ms. Mapps requested that modification 

of VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines be considered to reduce ambiguity 

of language and expressed concern that SLI Compliance has yet to see 

the requirements that have been developed, which, in her opinion, could 

have been better developed with VSTLs' input into the process. 

Mr. Jack Cobb addressed the Commission to provide testimony regarding 

Pro V&V's perspective on the VVSG 2.0 principles and guidelines. Mr. 

Cobb began with a brief overview of the steps that led to the development 

of VVSG 2.0. 

Questions and Answers: 

Vice Chair Benjamin Hovland asked the panel to discuss whether VVSG 

2.0 falls in line with other industry standards and the significant changes 

between VVSG 1.0 and VVSG 2.0. Ms. Mapps responded with her 

concerns about the ambiguity of language in the principles and guidelines 

such as terms like "robustly," "gracefully," and "clear." Dr. Hall concurred 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

with Ms. Mapps' determination that the language needs to be clear so that 

engineers can implement it. Vice Chair Hovland inquired of Dr. Hall 

whether wireless technology should be included as a principle/guideline or 

as a requirement, and Dr. Hall responded that he believed it would be 

inappropriate to ban wireless technology in the principles and guidelines 

since wireless can be used in many different ways and so language 

determining the usability of wireless technology should be included in the 

requirements. 

Commissioner Donald Palmer asked the panel what the Commission 

could do to ensure timeliness of system implementation, and Mr. Cobb 

responded that, because of HAVA, implementation necessarily takes time 

because of the process of the public comment period but that the highlevel principles and guidelines with more specific requirements will make 

changes over time easier to implement, and Ms. Mapps agreed. Dr. Hall 

responded that it may be beneficial to try to come up with a continuous 

process for updating the requirements so that new ideas may be vetted 

and possibly implemented quickly. Commissioner Palmer asked Dr. Hall 

why Dr. Hall doesn't believe that the Commissioners can vote on more 

than a handful of requirements at a time, to which Dr. Hall responded that 

there may be thousands, which require a lot of extra information and 

would be too time-consuming. Mr. Cobb agreed with Dr. Hall that it would 

be beneficial to the manufacturers to update their systems a little at a time. 

Ms. Mapps agreed as well that a phased approach may be the best way 

for manufacturers to update their systems to new standards. 

Commissioner Thomas Hicks inquired of Ms. Mapps whether SLI 

Compliance had worked on the test assertions for VVSG 1.0 before or 

after the final Commission vote, and Ms. Mapps responded that the test 

assertions were not developed until after VVSG 1.0 was implemented. 

Commissioner Hicks then asked about standards in other industries like 

the auto industry, and Dr. Hall responded with his limited knowledge on 

auto industry standards. Commissioner Hicks inquired whether testing 

could be expanded out to more groups, and Mr. Cobb responded that skill 

sets are very specific, third-party labs are able to perform some of the 

work, and compartmentalization may be useful in the future. Ms. Mapps 

feels that her VSTL is qualified to do all of the work but that it would be 

nice to be able to subcontract some things. 

Chairwoman Christy McCormick inquired of the panel whether they 

believe an additional lab is necessary, and Ms. Mapps responded that it 

would be hard to keep three labs busy but that two labs are essential. Mr. 

Cobb responded with a history of specific labs such as iBeta, SLI, Wyle, 

and Cyber and that he agrees with Ms. Mapps that two labs at all times 

would be ideal. Chairwoman McCormick asked Ms. Mapps about the 

ambiguity of language in VVSG 1.0, and Ms. Mapps responded 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contradictions in language with font size and National Registry listings. 

Chair McCormick asked Dr. Hall whether the manufacturers will continue 

to allocate resources into changing their systems or whether they will wait 

for the EAC to update the requirements, and Dr. Hall responded that 

manufacturers should have a continual process to change their systems 

but that it's hard to predict what the manufacturers will do but that proper 

incentives to evolve their systems will be necessary. Chair McCormick 

expressed her concern that the manufacturers have had many years to 

implement 1.1 and they still haven't and what that means for 2.0 

implementation. Chair McCormick then inquired of Ms. Mapps as to 

whether SLI Compliance had been involved in any of the discussions for 

the requirements for 2.0, and Ms. Mapps explained that they'd begun to 

participate in the public working groups but it was unproductive and a 

waste of time. 

Vice Chair Hovland inquired of the panel whether the requirements could 

be broken out into themes or categories within the requirements, and Mr. 

Cobb responded with hardware testing, precertification testing, and 

usability requirements. Ms. Mapps responded that she agreed with 

hardware testing and that security improvements should be done in a 

phased approach. 

Commissioner Palmer asked the panel about incentivizing manufacturers 

to move to VVSG 2.0, and Dr. Hall responded that there should be a point 

past which manufacturers can't test to old standards that essentially are so 

outdated that they don't provide value. Ms. Mapps suggested that that 

must be driven by the market, by the States themselves, because it is a 

voluntary program. Mr. Cobb agreed and added that the States will 

continue doing what they're doing until forced to change. Commissioner 

Palmer then asked about adversarial testing and vulnerability handling 

and the suggestion of a security testing program evaluator handling the 

penetration testing if the EAC had funding for it, and Dr. Hall responded 

that that type of security work could be subcontracted out but that there 

needs to be standards and handling processes in place so that 

manufacturers can accept the report of a vulnerability and fix the 

vulnerability in a timely way. Mr. Cobb noted that VSTLs are not allowed 

under HAVA to subcontract work out. Ms. Mapps pointed out that an 

outside security subcontractor would be more expensive than doing it inhouse. 

Commissioner Hicks inquired of Dr. Hall what he meant by "trained 

security experts," and Dr. Hall explained that those are people who are 

hired to break into people's systems to find vulnerabilities. Commissioner 

Hicks followed up on Ms. Mapps' opinion that SLI Compliance's 

involvement with the working groups was a waste of time and asked her to 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

expound, to which Ms. Mapps apologized for her terminology but that she 

feels changes to the public working groups would be beneficial. 

Chairwoman McCormick inquired of the panel whether the requirements 

should be attached to the high-level principles and guidelines, and Dr. Hall 

and Ms. Mapps both believe that they should be. Chair McCormick asked 

whether, after passage of VVSG 2.0, updates to the principles and 

guidelines will never be necessary because they are so high level, and 

that changes will only be needed to the requirements, and Mr. Cobb 

responded that the principles and guidelines are broad enough that they 

shouldn't need to be changed. Chair McCormick asked whether the 

boards would be necessary any longer after passage of 2.0, and Dr. Hall 

responded that they would be to ensure the requirements are in 

compliance with the principles and guidelines. 

Vice Chair Hovland followed up on Chair McCormick's question by asking 

if the requirements should align with the principles and guidelines but they 

don't necessarily need to be one document, and Dr. Hall agreed that they 

can't be completely divorced from each other. Vice Chair Hovland then 

asked particularly about barcodes and that the barcode should meet the 

principle of auditability, and Dr. Hall responded that barcodes are technical 

in nature and therefore should be addressed in the requirements. Vice 

Chair Hovland then inquired of the panel how often a review should occur 

once a requirement is passed, and Mr. Cobb responded that, because of 

the political nature of the requirements, different groups will see the 

requirements differently. Dr. Hall and Ms. Mapps suggested an appeal 

process would be useful. 

Public Commenters 

Guillermo Mena from the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators 

provided testimony to the Commission regarding his organization's 

opposition to the VVSG 2.0 and cited examples of ambiguous language in 

the document that he believes would lead to unintended consequences. 

Maurice Turner, Senior Technologist at the Center for Democracy and 

Technology, Election Security and Privacy Project, provided testimony to 

the Commission regarding particularly Principle 5, Principle 6, and 

Principle 8: Specifically, HAVA calls for voters to be able to vote privately 

and independently without assistance from others; foreign interference in 

the 2016 elections sharpened priorities for local, State, and Federal 

officials on the security of digital technologies used throughout the election 

systems; and that there is an increased expectation of accountability in the 

election process as a means of reducing the ability of interfering with votes 

and voters. 

7 
 

Adjournment 

Chairwoman McCormick made a motion to adjourn the public meeting, 

which was seconded by Commissioner Donald Palmer. 

The Public Meeting of the Election Assistance Commission adjourned at 

3:52 p.m. 

8 
1

Meeting Minutes

United States Election Assistance Commission

VVSG 2.0 Virtual Public Hearing

March 27, 2020

1335 East West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) held March 27, 2020. The virtual meeting convened at 

10:00 a.m. via Zoom web conference on Friday, March 27, 2020 and adjourned at 11:49 

a.m.

PUBLIC MEETING

Call to Order

Chairman Benjamin Hovland called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

Roll Call

Chairman Hovland called roll and found present Vice Chair Donald Palmer,

Commissioner Christy McCormick, and Commissioner Thomas Hicks and declared 

a quorum present.

Adoption of the Agenda

Chairman Hovland called for a motion to approve the agenda, as submitted. 

After being seconded by Commissioner McCormick, the motion carried 

unanimously.

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statements of Commissioners

Chairman Hovland thanked the members of the Technical Development 

Guidelines Committee (TGDC), EAC and NIST staff, members of the public, and 

the EAC’s Standards Board and Board of Advisors for their hard work in drafting 

the VVSG 2.0 requirements. 

Vice Chairman Palmer announced that this was the first of three public hearings 

that will be held on VVSG 2.0. Also announced two avenues that the EAC is using 

to solicit comments on VVSG 2.0: EAC Boards (Board of Advisors and Standards 

Board) and the 90-day public comment period via regulations.gov.
2

Commissioner Hicks expressed appreciation for everyone’s participation and also 

announced the June 22nd deadline to receive public comments. Also 

acknowledged Acting Executive Director, Mona Harrington, and welcomed new 

EAC staff.

Commissioner McCormick highlighted importance of public engagement in the 

VVSG 2.0 development process and encouraged public engagement during the 

90-day public comment period. Expressed that VVSG 2.0 must be reasonable to 

support voting systems that are viable and affordable for jurisdictions and 

emphasized that reliability is critical.

Opening testimony from the panelists

10:11 a.m.

Chairman Hovland introduced and welcomed Neal Kelly, Orange County 

Registrar of Voters and member of the TGDC.

Neal expressed appreciated to the commissioners for their leadership and 

guidance throughout the development process. TGDC engaged in robust 

discussions over the requirements.

Why is VVSG 2.0 better than VVSG 1.1? Interoperability, human factors, 

accessibility, and security. Interoperability is bold and brings much needed 

flexibility to voting systems. VVSG 2.0 is based on functions not solely devices. 

One key question: what requirements should election officials be focused on? At 

minimum, high quality design – election definition, closing polls, tabulation. 

Transparency – security. Interoperability – how a voting system uses data. 

Auditability – ensures that voting systems are auditable and support evidencebased audits.

10:19 a.m.

Chairman Hovland introduced and welcomed the NIST panelists: Mary Brady –

Voting Program Manager, Dr. Sharon Laskowski – Human Factors Technical Lead, 

and Gema Howell – Cybersecurity Technical Lead. 

Mary expressed the goal of VVSG 2.0 is for voters to have an improved voting 

experience and that the final count expresses the true will of the voters. Mary 

addressed the changing landscape of elections, provided an overview of election 

systems, and highlighted the updates to the VVSG definition, which included: 

activate ballots for voters, record votes cast by voters, label ballots needing 

special treatment, export election data, and the ability to produce records in 

support of audits. 
3

Mary provided an overview of the process to develop public working groups and 

the scope of each group: Pre-Election, Election, Post-Election, Usability and 

Accessibility, Cybersecurity, Interoperability, and Testing. Mary noted that the 

TGDC adopted the VVSG 2.0 Principles and Guidelines in September 2017 and 

provided an overview of the Principles and Guidelines. 

Mary highlighted the proposed new structure for VVSG 2.0: Principles and 

Guidelines, Requirements, and Test Methods. She also explained the 

development process and provided an overview of major discussion items at 

each of the TGDC meetings from August 2019 to February 2020. Items that were 

discussed during the meetings: common data formats, indirect voter 

associations, barcodes, wireless, internet technology, E2E systems, voting system 

definition, accessibility and security, and clear boundaries between voting and 

election systems. 

Mary highlighted what is new with the VVSG 2.0 Requirements:

 Inclusion of industry and technology best practices

 Human factors reference federal accessibility standards, Section 508, and 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

 Updated voter interface requirements

 Common data formats

 Low-level support for risk-limiting audits

 Defensive coding practices, reliability, and electrical requirements were 

reviewed, updated, and streamlined

 Testing and certification guidance will be moved to the EAC’s Testing and 

Certification Program Manual

 New security requirements for software independence and advanced 

auditing methods

 Dedicated section on ballot secrecy

 Two-factor authentication is mandated for critical voting operations

 Cryptographic protection and new system integrity requirements

 All sections of the prior VVSG were reviewed, rethought, and updated

Mary provided an overview of the core requirements: High Quality Design, High 

Quality Implementation, Transparency, and Interoperability. She also highlighted 

that changes to the core requirements:

 Voting functions are organized as phases of an election

 Ensures usability, security, and reliability are designed from the start

 Strengthened documentation requirements

 Updated coding practices

 Streamlined electrical requirements
4

 Mandates greater interoperability and moves VVSG closer to component 

certification

 Manufacturer must document data format

 All hardware interfaces must use common methods and standards

 Barcodes and other data encodings must use open standards and include 

documentation

 Updated guidance and technical references

 Comprehensive documentation for design, evaluation, and operation is 

detailed in the transparency section

Mary concluded her testimony by mentioning the four types of common data 

formats that have been published by NIST: NIST 1500-102 Cast Vote Records, 

NIST 1500-101 Election Event Logging, NIST 1500-100 Election Results Reporting, 

and NIST 1500-103 Voter Records Interchange.

10:40 a.m.

Dr. Sharon Laskowski provided an overview about human factors requirements: 

accessibility, usability, and privacy. Human factors requirements are in Principles 

5 through 8 and one requirement in Principle 2. Sharon covered the goals for 

updating the accessibility and usability requirements for VVSG 2.0. A universal 

design approach was used in developing the human factors requirements.

Sharon highlighted the key updates to the requirements, which included text 

size, plain language, ballot review and verification. She also discussed: 

 Equivalent and consistent voter access modes of voting (Principle 5)

 Voter privacy (Principle 6)

 “POUR Principles” – perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust 

(Principle 7)

 Robust, safe, usable, and accessible (Principle 8)

 High quality implementation (Principle 2, Guideline 2.2)

10:51 a.m.

Gema Howell provided a security overview by discussing an expanding threat 

model, which includes natural disasters and nation-state attacks. Gema then 

discussed innovations since 2007 in industry (stronger network protocols and 

security frameworks) and in voting systems (risk-limiting audits and E2E 

protocols). Security requirements are mostly under Principles 9 through 15 and 

some are under Principle 2.

Gema stepped through each principle and provided highlights of changes in each 

principle. 
5

 Principle 9 – Auditable: software independence, E2E, and support for 

audits

 Principle 10 – Ballot Secrecy: distinguishes between ballot secrecy from 

voter privacy, no voter information in the voting system, and prevents 

the ability to associate a voter with their ballot selections

 Principle 11 – Access Control: strengthen access monitoring and requires 

multifactor authentication

 Principle 12 – Physical Security: logs physical connections and 

disconnections and restricts physical access to voting system ports that 

accommodate removable media

 Principle 13 – Data Protection: protects artifacts and transmitted data

 Principle 14 – System Integrity: improves system integrity including 

system hardening and secure configurations

 Principle 15 – Detection and Monitoring: additional log types and 

updateable and configurable detection and monitoring systems

Gema discussed remote ballot marking. VVSG 2.0 requirements do not apply 

to remote ballot marking devices and applications. However, remote ballot 

marking devices must comply with federal accessibility requirements. 

Gema discussed external network connections such as electronic pollbook 

and modems used for transmitting results. She also addressed the security 

concerns associated with those connections and possible solutions to 

address those concerns. Gema discussed internal wireless connections such 

as Bluetooth keyboard and mouse with an election management system, and

highlighted security concerns and how the requirements addressed the 

concerns including how voters can use assistive technology with voting 

systems. 

Gema concluded her testimony by summarizing the security changes that 

were made in developing the VVSG 2.0 Requirements. 

Questions and Answers:

11:12 a.m.

Chairman Hovland started off the Q&A by asking Mary if the requirements 

provided enough detail for manufacturers to build voting systems. Mary 

confirmed that the requirements do provide that detail. Commissioner Hovland 

followed up by asking if the new systems would reflect modern technology. 

Mary confirmed that NIST updated all of the requirements to reflect modern and 

best practices.
6

Chairman Hovland asked Sharon if the voter experience would be more user 

friendly compared to current voting equipment. Sharon confirmed that they 

would provide a better experience.

Chairman Hovland asked Gema if she was confident that new voting systems 

would be more secure than current voting systems. Gema confirmed that they 

would. 

Chairman Hovland asked Neal to discuss the impact of the requirements on 

election officials in the years to come. Neal responded that he think they would 

because they provide more flexibility. 

Vice Chairman Palmer asked the panelists the impact of air gaps in polling 

locations. Neal responded by stating that he currently has air gaps with his 

voting system and that he doesn’t think the requirements are onerous. Mary 

responded that NIST had many conversations with manufacturers and election 

officials regarding air gaps. Manufacturers had no issue with it and election 

officials preferred it. 

Vice Chairman Palmer followed up with asking about the transmission of results 

from a polling place. Gema responded that the requirements stop at the export 

of date and that transmission of results from a polling place are not covered by 

the requirements 

Commissioner Hicks asked Mary, Sharon, and Neal if they could talk about the 

discussions the TGDC had about voting systems. Neal responded that the TGDC 

had a lengthy discussion about the number of devices that would be required in 

a polling place. Mary responded that NIST highlighted requirements that are 

legal requirements that manufacturers must be followed. Sharon added that 

accessibility has always been mandated and that we shouldn’t underestimate

the number of devices that should be required and that poll worker proper 

training take place.

Commissioner Hicks asked if the manufacturers would build universal equipment 

with the new requirements similar to cellphones. Sharon responded that the 

requirements support universal design.

Commissioner Hicks followed up by asking about the percentage of usage for 

accessible voting equipment. Sharon responded that accessibility devices have 

broad coverage. Neal mentioned that universal design is ideal.

Commissioner Hicks asked Gema if a poll worker inputting data would increase 

risk of errors. Gema responded that there is always a potential for user error. 
7

She tried to share two options: barcode scanner or user to verify if information is 

correct.

Commissioner McCormick thanked the panelists and asked Mary if NIST took 

into account that requirements may be too difficult for manufacturers to meet. 

Mary responded that NIST took that into consideration. NIST also heard from 

manufacturers that they may be hold off building new voting systems until the 

new requirements are approved.

Commissioner McCormick asked Neal about how COTS would benefit election 

officials and why TGDC allowed them in the VVSG 2.0 requirements. Neal 

provided an example of a printer going down in a legacy system and how 

election officials would be able to purchase COTS hardware in a pinch.

Commissioner McCormick asked Gema to explain what changes were needed to 

make for risk-limiting audits. Gema responded that there was some key items 

that needed to be added to allow for conducting risk-limiting audits including 

identifiers, which led to additional requirements to ensure that an identifier 

cannot be linked to a voter. 

Commissioner McCormick asked Gema to explain software independence. Gema 

explained that software independence provides the capability to tabulate results 

independent of a voting system.

Commissioner McCormick asked Sharon for an idea of how much input the 

manufacturers and test labs had in developing the usability requirements. 

Sharon responded that many of the developers participated in the NIST public 

working groups. Sharon also mentioned that NIST has seen an evolution with the 

manufacturers in going from hardware developers to user interface designers.

Public Commenter

11:43 a.m.

Caitriona Fitzgerald from Electronic Privacy Information Center. Caitriona 

supports the VVSG 2.0 principles on voter privacy and ballot secrecy, 

accountability, and that voting systems cannot be connected to external 

networks. 

Adjournment

Chairman Hovland made a motion to adjourn the public meeting, which was 

seconded by Commissioner McCormick.
8

The Public Meeting of the Election Assistance Commission adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
1

Meeting Minutes 

United States Election Assistance Commission 

VVSG 2.0 Requirements Public Hearing 3:

Manufacturers, Technology, and Testing Labs

Virtual Public Hearing

May 20, 2020

1335 East West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

The following are the Minutes of the Public Meeting of the United States Election 

Assistance Commission (EAC) held May 20, 2020. The virtual meeting convened 

at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom web conference on Wednesday, May 20, 2020 and 

adjourned at 3:35 pm.

PUBLIC MEETING

Call to Order 

Chairman Benjamin Hovland called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Chairman Hovland called roll and found present Vice Chair Donald Palmer, 

Commissioner Thomas Hicks, and Commissioner Christy McCormick.

Adoption of Minutes 

Chairman Hovland submits a motion to adopt the minutes from May 6, 

2020, the second Virtual Public Hearing on VVSG 2.0 Requirements. 

Commissioner McCormick moves to adopt the minutes as submitted. All are 

in favor and the minutes are adopted.

Adoption of the Agenda
2

Chairman Hovland called for a motion to approve the agenda, as submitted. 

Vice Chair Palmer moves to adopt the agenda as submitted. All are in favor 

and the agenda is approved.

Welcoming Remarks and Opening Statements of Commissioners 

Chairman Hovland thanks the participants for this hearing and thanks the 

experts who have helped develop the VVSG 2.0 requirements over several 

years. Chairman Hovland notes that these new guidelines are focused on 

increasing the security and accessibility of voting systems, strengthening 

interoperability, and encouraging innovation. Chairman Hovland 

acknowledges some questions still need to be answered in regard to the new 

requirements, and this hearing will provide input from manufacturers and 

Voting Systems Test Labs (VSTLs).

Vice Chair Palmer notes that this is the third hearing, and therefore a number 

of EAC stakeholders have provided comment. These include Federal 

partners such as NIST, local and State election officials, and other experts in 

the field. Vice Chair Palmer thanks EAC staff for their work and notes the 

importance of this hearing involving manufactures and VSTLs. 

Commissioner Hicks recognizes the importance of manufacturers in the 

VVSG process. He notes that it is important to move forward with VVSG 

once the current pandemic has passed, and States will be dealing with 

constrained budgets. Commissioner Hicks notes that, for the most part, states 

will choose the best value for the level of service from the manufacturers. 

Commissioner McCormick welcomes the public and thanks the panelists. 

Commissioner McCormick highlights that it is important that the 

Commissioners get this right. To do that, the Commissioners have heard 

from a variety of stakeholders in order to balance interests in order to 

strengthen security, usability, and accessibility, but also encourage 

innovation and usher us into the future of voting technology.

Opening Testimony-Panel One
3

Chariman Hovland recognizes that the first panel involves perspectives from 

voting system manufacturers. Chairman Hovland notes that the 

manufacturers will be developing the new voting technology, and are 

therefore critical to the VVSG conversation. The panel includes Senior VP 

of Certification for ES&S Steve Pearson, Director of Federal Certification 

for Dominion Ian Piper, Director of Global Services and Certification for 

Smartmatic Edwin Smith, Chief Information Officer for MicroVote Bernie 

Hirsch, Chief Software Architect and Director of Software Development for

Unisyn and member of the TGDC McDermot Coutts, Executive Director of 

VotingWorks Ben Adida, Chief Technology Officer for Hart InterCivic Jim 

Canter, and Federal Certification Program Manager for Clear Ballot Group 

Russ Dawson.

Steve Pearson 

Mr. Pearson thanks the Commissioners for including ES&S in the 

conversation and notes that ES&S has a long history of building voting 

systems to emerging standards.

Ian Piper

Mr. Piper thanks the Commissioners. He provides three principles that he 

thinks will help the industry to build to VVSG 2.0 as a more dynamic and 

flexible format. These include agility, clarity, and stability. 

Edwin Smith

Mr. Smith thanks the Commissioners. He notes that VVSG 2.0 is an 

improvement and provides for better security, reliability, and usability of 

voting systems. He appreciates that VVSG 2.0 makes very explicit the need 

to bake in architectural features around security, accessibility, and usability. 

He also appreciates that VVSG 2.0 includes an innovation class, but cautions 

banning certain technologies and advocates for using the Cloud. 

Bernie Hirsch 

Mr. Hirsch thanks the Commissioners. He notes that the systems, at a high 

level, are hardware, software, and documentation. Mr. Hirsch acknowledges 

that the prior certification process took years, and this new process could 

take just as long. He emphasizes that it needs to be clear how manufactures 

can maintain existing voting systems for the next ten years. Mr. Hirsch 
4

concludes by saying security is a process, and they need to be able to update 

on a more regular basis.

McDermot Coutts

Mr. Coutts thanks the Commissioners. Mr. Coutts believes the VVSG 2.0 

started with much promise, but slowly got off track. Mr. Coutts thinks that 

any system built to this will be very homogenous and very expensive. Mr. 

Coutts thinks that the standards will not be reactionary to future problems 

and cites the FIPS 140-2 standard of encryption. He also notes the cost 

increase of the UL 37-rated locks as an example of price increases. Finally, 

Mr. Coutts believes that it will not really be possible to retrofit existing 

systems into the VVSG 2.0 as it stands now.

Ben Adida

Mr. Adida thanks the Commissioners and EAC Staff. Mr. Adida believes the 

VVSG should encourage and enable completion amongst manufactures and 

provides three points on how VVSG 2.0 can to do that. He commends the 

interoperability section of the requirements and the addition of user-centered 

design, but recommends some expansion of these sections. Finally, he 

believes that all vendors need to be held to the same standards, as 

VotingWorks is currently the only vendor subject to the 2015 standards. 

Jim Canter

Mr. Canter thanks the commissioners. He recommends circling back to this 

group once all public comments have been received in order to discuss the 

technical language of the requirements themselves. Mr. Canter notes that 

some of the current standards lacks sufficient detail and cites the language in 

Principle 9 on audibility.

Russ Dawson

Mr. Dawson thanks the Commissioner and notes that many of his comments 

have already been addressed. He notes that ClearVote is eager to embrace 

the revised Voluntary Voting System Guidelines that are crafted to enable 

more rapid and frequent enhancements to be introduced into the 

marketplace.

Questions and Answers for Panel One:
5

Chairman Hovland begins the Q&A session by asking all panelists yes or no, 

do they believe the VVSG 2.0 requirements are an improvement and 

necessary modernization from the current guidelines. All say yes, with some 

reservations on specifics. 

Chairman Hovland then asks all panelists if there are specific requirements 

that they have identified as overly burdensome, difficult to implement, or 

unnecessarily costly. 

 Mr. Pearson notes that the current requirements for voting system 

screen size and resolution will result in higher cost, as will the 

requirement for drill- and pick-proof UL locks. 

 Mr. Piper says they are still reviewing, but they will need the test 

assertions before fully answering.

 Mr. Smith says that 10.2.2.2-F around FIPS compliance add many 

months to the process.

 Mr. Hirsch says that 9.1.1-A on software independence should not call 

out DRE as a software -dependent voting system. He also thinks 

10.2.1-B, indirect voter associations should be allowed for a paperbased system. Mr. Hirsch also believes 1.2-F on continuous operation 

testing needs to include a DRE VVPAT combination similar to BMD 

or new technologies. He also thinks the 1.2-G temperature change will 

be more costly and take more time. Mr. Hirsch also thinks the whole 

environmental hardware section under 2.7 should only apply to voting 

devices used in the polling place. Finally, he believes that 2.7.1 on 

electrical testing is too restrictive. 

Chairman Hovland ends the line of question due to time constraints, but 

encourages panelists to submit comments in writing. 

Vice Chair Palmer asks all panelists if they have a timeline in mind to build 

and bring voting equipment up to VVSG 2.0 requirements.

 Mr. Pearson notes that that none of their fielded systems today can be 

upgraded as the standards are currently written. He thinks it will take 

18-36 months to build to these standards. He also emphasizes a need 

for test assertions.

 Mr. Piper notes they have begun work on building to 2.0 

requirements, but they need the test assertions to decide a timeline. 
6

 Mr. Smith says they are continuing to evaluate. 

 Mr. Hirsch says they do not have a full timeline, but estimates two to 

three years to develop and build the first prototype. 

 Mr. Coutts says they have also begun work to meet the new 

requirements, but estimates it will be years before a system can be 

fielded.

 Mr. Adida recommends ways for the EAC to speed up the timeline. 

He notes that certain VVSG 1.1 standards were never met, but have 

been carried over which will add time. He also notes that the 

requirement for seven straight days of testing machines adds time and 

cost.

 Mr. Canter notes that Verity has already met some 2.0 requirements, 

but upgrading existing systems to 2.0 requirements will be 

challenging.

 Mr. Dawson agrees with other projected timelines and emphasizes the 

need for test assertions.

Vice Chair Palmer notes that the Commissioners are dedicated to developing 

the test assertions sooner than later in order to expedite the timeline. 

Commissioner Hicks asks all panelists about principle 4 on interoperability 

and how it impacts manufacturers, especially in terms of who will address 

issues in the long-term. 

 Mr. Dawson notes that Principle 4 includes four NIST standards, 

which will impact how rapidly they can bring a product to market.

 Mr. Canter says interoperability has a high return on investment for 

the local election community. He says it will take time to work 

through the source of truth issue and it is difficult to develop, but the 

benefits are very real. 

 Mr. Adida thinks it is critical to include interoperability and it can be 

incremental. Mr. Adida says the first step in this process is to require 

that all existing formats that are actively used be open for everybody 

to observe and that they be documented.

 Mr. Coutts says it is hard to determine who will be responsible for 

errors under interoperability and that the EAC would need to test 

everyone together. 
7

 Mr. Hirsch says interoperability reduces diversity and needs to have 

component-level certification. 

 Mr. Smith says it has a technological piece and a marketing piece. He 

says from the technological side it can be done, but it will be up to the 

labs to assess compliance. From a marketing perspective, he cites Los 

Angeles’s use of a prime integrator as a solution for responsibility. 

 Mr. Piper says it is still unclear how interoperability will be tested and 

there are still concerns over security of the system.

 Mr. Pearson agrees with Mr. Piper, and says there are still a lot of 

questions around interoperability. 

Commissioner McCormick notes that the limit on time is unfortunate and 

recommends the manufacturers submit written comments. Commissioner 

McCormick asks if the increase in cost will be prohibitive to election 

administrators and what the increased cost will do to the market in general. 

All agree that it will increase cost and could be prohibitive. Many note that 

state budgets will be constrained following the recent pandemic. 

Chairman Hovland thanks all of the panelists. He again emphasizes the 

importance of written comments and expresses some discontent in not 

hearing from the manufacturers sooner. He turns it over to Vice Chair 

Palmer for panel two.

Opening Testimony: Panel Two

Vice Chair Palmer thanks the panelists for agreeing to join the conversation. 

He notes that VSTLs play a vital role in voting system testing and 

certification. Vice Chair Palmer introduces the panelists, Senior Test 

Manager for SLI Compliance Mike Santos and Co-founder and Laboratory 

Director of Pro V&V, Inc. Jack Cobb.

Mike Santos

Mr. Santos thanks the Commissioners. He notes that the new standards need 

to be as unambiguous as possible and cites that for VVSG 1.0 there were 

over 20 requests for interpretation. Clear standards reduces time and 

prevents inconsistencies in testing amongst VSTLs. Mr. Santos notes that he 

has not participated in the development of test assertions for VVSG 2.0, 
8

which is a concern he has. He asks that the VSTLs have the opportunity to 

review the test assertions before they are finalized.

Jack Cobb 

Mr. Cobb thanks the Commissioners. He notes that while he has not fully 

assessed the requirements, he believes it is a step in the right direction. Mr. 

Cobb notes that VVSG 2.0 takes a new approach by looking at the required 

functions of a computerized system to be a voting system. Mr. Cobb finds 

that evaluating systems that States are using to combat the pandemic are 

difficult to evaluate against VVSG 1.1. He believes VVSG 2.0 provides a 

better framework where new technologies can be evaluated more easily.

Questions and Answers for Panel Two:

Vice Chair Palmer asks both panelists how VVSG 2.0 will impact testing 

and if there are any obvious advantages or disadvantages. Mr. Santos 

highlights the clarity and layout as advantages of VVSG 2.0, but some 

ambiguities can be ironed out. Mr. Cobb agrees, and emphasizes the 

importance of new test assertions.

Chairman Hovland asks Mr. Cobb if VVSG 2.0 solves the decibel level 

concern he previously had with VVSG 1.0. Mr. Cobb says he had not 

analyzed that point.

Chairman Hovland asks if Mr. Santos has anything to add. Mr. Santos says it 

looks like some of the content for usability was taken from an RFI that was 

put out in 2013, but not all of it. He says this impacts the relevant sample 

size.

Chairman Hovland asks both panelists what provisions have adequate details 

to test to and what provisions require additional detail to build test 

assertions. Mr. Santos says 85% of the provisions do not need test 

assertions, but he does think some need more updating. Mr. Santos agrees 

with the previous panel that some clarification on terminology is necessary 

in order to avoid different interpretations. Mr. Cobb adds that as 2.0 was 

being written the purpose was to ensure that they could test to certain things 

instead of build to those things.
9

Commissioner Hicks ask both panelists what sort of technologies cannot 

conform to the old standards. Mr. Cobb points out the requirement in VVSG 

that the device that the device that captures the vote has to auditable, but a 

smartphone cannot be audited. Mr. Santos acknowledges the difficulty of 

implementing technologies like smartphones. Mr. Santos believes the 

requirements have still been thought of along the lines of traditional polling 

place devices.

Commissioner McCormick asks what is the biggest reason for lengthy 

testing times and if the new requirements address or exacerbate it. Mr. Cobb 

says the main issue causing the lengthy testing time in the past was system 

preparedness, which is better today. Mr. Santos adds that when the previous 

standards came out the EAC was just getting off the ground, so he expects 

this time around will be more streamlined. Mr. Santos also adds that 

ambiguities in prior VVSGs added time, and 2.0 is much better in that 

regard.

Commissioner McCormick follows up and asks both panelists from a VSTL 

standpoint if the new requirements will require manufacturers to start from 

zero in designing new systems and increase the timeline as noted in the 

previous panel. Mr. Cobb says he would need to evaluate a system on paper 

against the actual requirements to answer that question. Mr. Santos says that 

architecturally there are some big impacts from VVSG 2.0 so it could take 

time.

Chairman Hovland asks if there is enough detail for manufacturers to start 

designing and building when the requirements are adopted. Mr. Cobb says

yes it is enough to start, but they will still need the test assertions. Mr. 

Santos agrees with Mr. Cobb, but says if the EAC resolves certain 

ambiguities and establishes best practices it will save time. 

Vice Chair Palmer asks both panelists how the EAC can provide clarity on 

the innovation class. Mr. Cobb says the innovation class in 1.1 was not used 

to his knowledge and thinks this is in large part due to the prior lack of 

commissioners. Mr. Cobb emphasizes that innovation is inspired by the 
10

EAC. Mr. Santos says VVSG 2.0 has locked down innovation and 

innovation may be slowed based on the bans of certain technologies.

Commissioner Hicks asks both panelists what their thoughts are on the labs 

participating the process at various points in the process but still leaving the 

VSTLs as the final determination of the certification process. Mr. Cobb says 

that things could be going on in parallel and cites that it might be easier to 

allow the manufacturers to do the hardware testing and bring the VSTLs a 

report. Mr. Santos likes it as a concept if properly implemented, but if it 

would have to be tightly managed. He also adds that it could create more 

overhead, but there are things to gain.

Commissioner McCormick asks the panelists to give some visibility on the

problems in VVSG 1.1 that prevented manufacturers from submitting 

systems to test and if that will continue to be a problem under 2.0 standards 

that carry over from 1.1. Mr. Cobb says he is unsure of the specific issue, but 

the EAC should take manufacturer comments into consideration. Mr. Santos 

says he remembers two requirements giving manufacturers trouble under 

1.1. The first was the cyclomatic complexity requirement, which Mr. Santos 

does not recall seeing in VVSG 2.0. The second was the 

usability/accessibility requirement for hands free voting, which he thinks is 

still in 2.0. Mr. Santos thinks that there are workarounds for manufacturers 

on this requirement, but it would be a significant effort.

Public Comment

Lauren Lochridge and Christopher Hughes of the Voting Methods Working 

Group recommend that VVSG 2.0 casting and tabulation standards be 

revised to match their work product, Voting Methods and Tabulation 

Methods Standards Draft NIST SP1500-107.

Adjournment

Chairman Hovland thanks the public commenters and participants. He notes 

that the next step in the process is to discuss the requirements of the 

Standards Board and Board of Advisors in June. He reminds everyone that 
11

the public comment period is open until June 22nd and emphasizes the need 

for comments.

Chairman Hovland calls for a motion to adjourn the Hearing. Commissioner 

Hicks so moves and Commissioner McCormick seconds the motion. 

The Public Meeting of the Election Assistance Commission adjourned at 3:35

p.m.