WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 

TESTIMONY

OF

HONORABLE GINEEN BRESSO BEACH, CHAIR,

HONORABLE GRACIA HILLMAN, VICE CHAIR 

HONORABLE DONETTA DAVIDSON, AND

TOM WILKEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

ELECTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Ave., NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 2 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

Good morning Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member McCarthy, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. We are pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) to discuss the 2008 audit review and the Commission’s goals and 

activities. 

INTRODUCTION

The EAC is a bipartisan, independent Commission consisting of four members: Gineen 

Bresso Beach, Chair; Gracia Hillman, Vice Chair; and Donetta Davidson. Former 

Commissioner Rosemary Rodriguez resigned on February 28, 2009, creating one vacancy 

on the Commission. 

The EAC’s mission is to guide, assist and direct the effective administration of Federal 

elections through funding, innovation, guidance and information. To achieve its mission, 

the EAC has focused on fulfilling its obligations under HAVA and the National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA). Specific program areas include voting system certification, 

research and HAVA funds management. EAC also works to identify potential election 

administration issues and to provide States with tools that they can use to conduct 

accurate, secure and accessible elections. 

The EAC has employed four strategic objectives to meet these statutory requirements: 

improving voting systems; effective management of HAVA funds; researching key 

election administration issues; and assisting election officials. Below we discuss what 

Congress, States and the public at large can expect from the EAC in the coming year, 

beginning with our efforts to strengthen internal operations. 

INTERNAL OPERATIONS

In Fiscal Year 2008, in anticipation of the Federal election, the EAC allocated resources 

to program areas that provide training and management materials to election officials and 

information and language assistance materials to the public. Those efforts included 

creative approaches like increasing Web site bandwidth and public meeting webcasts to 

deliver resources, such as best practices in contingency planning, to larger audiences. The 

Commission also dedicated resources to develop the next iteration of the VVSG and for 

ongoing activities in the Federal government’s first Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program. The Commission’s FY 2008 appropriation was $16,530,000, 

which included a pass through of $3,250,000 for The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). 

In 2008, the EAC also laid the groundwork to strengthen management, accountability, 

and internal controls. Recognizing the need to modify the management structure, roles 

and responsibilities of the Commissioners and the executive director were finalized and 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 3 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

steps are being taken to finalize a management plan that will enable the EAC to monitor 

objectives and meet Commission goals. 

The EAC’s effort to strengthen internal operations was a direct result of three significant 

events. The first was an assessment by the OIG that highlighted the need for the EAC to 

implement a strategic plan, improve internal controls, clarify the roles and responsibilities 

of the commissioners and senior management, and establish and or document policies 

and procedures for all program areas. The second was the requirement that EAC 

complete an audit of its Fiscal Year 2008 financial statements for the first time. The third 

was feedback from the financial statement auditors that EAC had some material internal 

control weaknesses. In response to these events, EAC has: 

 Hired a chief operating officer, a chief financial officer, an accounting director 

with a CPA, a grants manager and a contracting officer. 

 Adopted a strategic plan. 

 Issued policy on the roles and responsibilities of Commissioners and the 

executive director. 

 Hired a contractor to help write policies and procedures and to document internal 

controls. 

 Hired consultants to help develop performance-based budgets, produce quarterly 

financial statements and establish a corrective action plan to address finding in the 

financial statement audit. 

 Contracted with a certified public accounting firm to assist with financial 

management. 

 Initiated efforts to obtain the services of a qualified firm to assist with prioritizing, 

analyzing, and implementing the audit recommendations to aid with developing a 

management plan, assuming budgetary resources are available. 

 Started to update documentation of current financial management processes and 

systems. 

 Initiated an assessment of training needs for employees to further enhance 

awareness of financial management. 

 Preparing to issue a contract for assistance with the development of a 

comprehensive corrective action plan to address all weaknesses. 

The EAC is using input from the chief operating officer, chief financial officer, staff with 

Federal financial management experience, stakeholders, expert consultants, the Office of 

Management and Budget, Congress and the OIG to make the adjustments that are needed 

for financial and management processes. The Commissioners and the executive director 

will incorporate the roles and responsibilities policy to ensure a high level of 

accountability. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 4 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

IMPROVING VOTING SYSTEMS

Effective administration of voting systems requires the use of accurate, reliable, 

accessible and auditable voting systems. HAVA establishes the following requirements 

for voting systems used in Federal elections: 

o Allow the voter to verify the votes selected on the ballot before it is cast; 

o Allow the voter the ability to change his or her selections prior to casting a vote; 

o Notify the voter of an overvote and the consequences of casting an overvote; 

o Provide an auditable, permanent paper record of the election; 

o Provide accessibility to individuals with disabilities including persons who are 

blind or visually impaired; 

o Provide accessibility to persons for whom English is not their first language when 

required by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act; and 

o Meet or exceed the error rate as established in the 2002 Voting System Standards 

developed by the Federal Election Commission. 

HAVA Section 301; 42 U.S.C. Section 15481 requires that all voting systems used in an 

election for Federal office meet or exceed these requirements. 

HAVA required EAC to develop voluntary voting system guidelines for testing voting 

systems and required EAC to establish a program to test voting systems using Federally 

accredited laboratories. The establishment of the EAC's Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program marks the first time the Federal government has tested voting 

equipment. The EAC's program is a voluntary exercise in which States can choose from a 

list of Federally certified voting systems for use in their jurisdictions. 

The voting system certification program established by HAVA prescribes a partnership 

between NIST and the EAC. NIST evaluates and recommends to the EAC voting system 

test laboratories that should be accredited. After the EAC accredits a test laboratory, 

voting system manufacturers seeking EAC certification may submit their systems to the 

accredited laboratory for testing. 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)

One of EAC’s most important mandates is the testing, certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting system hardware and software. Fundamental to implementing 

this key function is the development of updated voting system guidelines, which 

prescribe the technical requirements for voting system performance and identify testing 

protocols to determine how well voting systems meet these requirements. The EAC, 

along with its Federal advisory committee, the Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee (TGDC), and NIST, work together to develop voluntary testing standards. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 5 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

The 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

In accordance with the HAVA-mandated 9-month deadline, the TGDC, working with 

NIST, technology experts, accessibility experts, and election officials, delivered the first 

draft of the 2005 VVSG to the EAC in May 2005. The EAC conducted an initial review 

and released the two-volume proposed VVSG for public comment for a period of 90 

days. The EAC received more than 6,000 comments. Each comment was reviewed and 

considered before the document was finalized and adopted. The agency also held public 

hearings about the VVSG in New York City, NY, Pasadena, CA, and Denver, CO. The 

EAC adopted the 2005 VVSG at a public meeting in December 2005. 

The VVSG was an initial update to the 2002 Voting System Standards focusing primarily 

on improving the standards for accessibility, usability and security. The VVSG also 

established the testing methods for assessing whether a voting system meets the 

guidelines. 

The Next Iteration of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

After meeting the HAVA deadline to issue the initial VVSG, the TGDC and NIST began 

work immediately on a complete re-write of the 2005 VVSG to address the next 

generation of voting systems. The TGDC’s draft of the next iteration of guidelines 

contains new and expanded material covering reliability and quality, usability and 

accessibility, security and testing. Requirements are more precise and the language is 

written for enhanced usability and readability by a wide variety of audiences. 

The next iteration of the guidelines contains the following sections: 

 Part 1, Equipment Requirements: for requirements that pertain specifically to 

voting equipment. 

 Part 2, Documentation Requirements: for documentation requirements that 

must be satisfied by both manufacturers and test labs – the Technical Data 

Package, user documentation, test lab reports, etc. 

 Part 3, Testing Requirements: information and requirements about testing; the 

approaches to testing that will be used by test labs; the types of tests that will be 

used to test conformance to the requirements in Parts 1 and 2. 

 Appendix A, Definitions of Words with Special Meanings: covers terminology 

used in requirements and informative language. 

 Appendix B, References and End Notes: contains references to documents and 

on-line document used in the writing of this standard. 

In October 2007, the EAC launched the first of two public comment periods for the next 

iteration, and announced the four-phase process to final adoption. The Commission has 

completed the first two phases. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 6 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

Phase I – The EAC submitted the TGDC’s draft document to the Federal Register 

and launched the first public comment phase with an online comment tool 

available at www.eac.gov. The public comment period lasted for 120 days and all 

comments were made public. 

Phase II – The EAC reviewed all public comments submitted on the TGDC draft. 

Phase III – Based upon public comment and internal review of the TGDC 

document, the EAC is working to develop and publish its draft version in the 

Federal Register. The public will have another 120 days to comment on the EAC 

draft version. The EAC will conduct public hearings about its draft version. 

Phase IV – The EAC will collect and review all comments submitted and make 

final modifications. The final version of the VVSG will be adopted by vote of the 

Commission at a public meeting and then published in the Federal Register. 

To ensure ongoing public participation and input into the testing and certification 

process, in 2008 EAC held a series of roundtable discussions involving a wide variety of 

stakeholders. Participants included representatives from the disability and voter advocacy 

communities, election officials, voting system manufacturers, and technology experts. 

Roundtable participants provided feedback on voting system security and accessibility as 

well as overall suggestions to improve the process. Roundtable discussions were open to 

the public, and information generated from those discussions is available at 

www.eac.gov. 

After reviewing comments and receiving input from a series of roundtable discussions 

about the next iteration, the EAC determined that some of the contents of the next 

iteration should be implemented now instead of waiting for final adoption, which may not 

occur for several years to come due to the large volume of comments received and input 

from public roundtable discussions. Suggestions for areas of improvement included 

addressing ambiguity that may lead to inconsistent testing, numerous interpretations, and 

overall delays in the process. 

To implement updates to the 2005 VVSG, the EAC will follow the procedures in HAVA. 

Suggested updates will be published for a 120-day public comment period, EAC advisory 

boards will be asked to comment and Commissioners will vote to consider the updates. 

As updates to the 2005 VVSG are contemplated, the EAC will continue working 

uninterrupted on the next iteration. 

Voting system certification and laboratory accreditation

Accreditation of Voting System Testing Laboratories
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 7 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

HAVA Section 231 requires EAC and NIST to develop a national program for 

accrediting voting system testing laboratories. The National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of NIST evaluates test laboratories and performs 

periodic re-evaluation to verify that the labs continue to meet the accreditation criteria. 

When NIST has determined that a lab is competent to test systems, the NIST director 

recommends to EAC that a lab be accredited. EAC then makes the determination to 

accredit the lab. EAC issues an accreditation certificate to approved labs, maintains a 

register of accredited labs and posts this information on its Web site. Labs must adhere to 

the requirements of EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual or face 

possible suspension or revocation of the accreditation. These requirements include a 

stringent conflict of interest program and compliance management program. 

The EAC has accredited four test laboratories based on recommendations from NIST: 

CIBER, Inc., iBeta Quality Assurance, SysTest Labs and Wyle Laboratories, Inc. 

Voting System Certification

HAVA instructed the EAC to establish the Federal government’s first program to test and 

certify voting equipment. The certification program was established after the adoption of 

the 2005 VVSG and the first recommendations from NIST regarding test laboratories that 

should be accredited to evaluate voting systems. 

The first step in the certification process is registration by the manufacturer. They are 

required to provide written policies for quality assurance purposes, document retention 

policies and a complete list of facilities. The manufacturer also agrees to meet all 

program requirements, such as reporting all anomalies for EAC certified-systems. 

Next, the manufacturer is required to submit an application for the testing of their voting 

system. It is at this time that they select an EAC accredited laboratory. This laboratory 

then submits a test plan for approval by the EAC, tests the voting system and, finally, 

creates a test report. Reports from the laboratory’s assessment of the voting system are 

provided to EAC for review and action. The reports are reviewed by EAC technical 

reviewers. If the report is in order and the system is in conformance with the applicable 

voting system standards or guidelines, the EAC will grant the system certification. The 

EAC’s executive director will consider the recommendation and make the final decision. 

Once certified, a system may bear an EAC mark of certification and may be marketed as 

having obtained EAC certification. 

The EAC’s certification process includes assessment of quality control, field monitoring, 

decertification of voting systems, and enhanced public access to certification information. 

For more information concerning EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program, see the program manual available on the EAC Web site, www.eac.gov. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 8 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

This year, EAC certified MicroVote EMS 4.0, the first voting system to receive Federal 

certification to the 2005 VVSG. Eight voting systems have applied for Federal 

certification and are currently being evaluated by Federally accredited test labs. 

Federal Role Adds Transparency and Accountability

The EAC’s role brings government rules for public disclosure and involvement to the 

process of certifying voting equipment. The EAC conducts accreditation and certification 

processes that are transparent and that share information about the process with the 

public. The EAC developed its programs with the knowledge that public confidence is 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 9 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

critical to the election process and that confidence comes from public knowledge and 

understanding of the process. 

To meet the requirements for disclosure and transparency, the EAC dedicated a large 

portion of its Web site to house information about the program. Visitors are able to access 

basic information, such as lists of accredited laboratories and registered manufacturers, as 

well as more detailed documents generated throughout the process, including: 

 Application, registration, and reporting forms 

 Correspondence 

 Certified voting systems 

 Decertification actions 

 Denials of certification 

 Interpretations 

 Manufacturer appeals 

 Notices of Clarification 

 Press releases and public meeting notices 

 Requirements matrix 

 Reports (investigations, manufacturing facility reviews, etc.) 

 Test plans (final and draft versions) 

 Voting systems submitted for certification 

 Voting System Testing and Certification Manual 

 Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual 

Visitors to the EAC Web site also have access to background and historical information 

about the history of voting system standards and guidelines and certification, such as an 

extensive frequently asked questions document, overviews of the processes and a detailed 

step-by-step description of how voting systems are certified by the Federal government. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 10 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

How does a Voting System Get Certified by the EAC? 

Step one: Voting system manufacturers must register with the EAC. 

Step two: Manufacturers must submit an application and select a federally 

accredited test laboratory to begin the testing process. 

Step three: Test laboratory submits draft test plan to EAC for approval. 

Step four: EAC approves test plan. 

Step five: Voting system is tested to the applicable standards. 

Step six: Testing concluded; draft test report submitted to EAC for approval. 

Step seven: EAC approves test report and issues initial decision on 

certification. 

Step eight: Test laboratory rebuilds voting system in a trusted environment, 

otherwise known as a “trusted build.” 

Step nine: Manufacturer provides software identification tools to EAC, which 

enables election officials to confirm use of EAC-certified systems. 

Step ten: Manufacturer provides voting system software to EAC repository, 

allowing EAC to capture an official record of the voting system it has tested 

and certified. 

Step eleven: Manufacturer agrees in writing to all EAC certification conditions 

and program requirements. 

Step twelve: EAC certifies voting system.

As part of its ongoing program to explore ways to make the certification process more 

efficient and cost effective, in January 2009 the EAC hosted the Unified Testing Initiative 

and Cost of Testing Summit to explore ways the Federal government could coordinate its 

testing and certification efforts with state and local election officials to improve 

efficiency and reduce costs. Session topics included identifying factors that impact costs, 

balancing quality testing and costs and an explanation of the EAC’s threat assessment 

project. The meeting was open to the public, and testimony, a participant list, and other 

meeting information is available at www.eac.gov. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 11 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

HAVA FUNDS MANAGEMENT

EAC distributes, monitors, and reports on funding programs authorized by HAVA to 

improve the administration of elections for federal office. This also involves negotiating 

indirect cost rates with state election offices and resolving audit findings on the use of 

HAVA funds. 

Of the $3.65 billion authorized under HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 251 in direct 

funding to states that is administered by EAC, $3.18 billion has been appropriated. 

Approximately $466 million remains to be appropriated. 

 $ 3,650,000,000 (Cumulative amounts authorized under HAVA Sections 101, 

102, and 251 in direct funding to States that is administered by EAC ) 

 $ 3,183,860,618 (Cumulative amounts appropriated under HAVA Sections 101, 

102, and 251 in direct funding to States that is administered by EAC ) 

 $ 466,139,382 (Direct funding to States administered by EAC that was authorized 

but has not been appropriated) 

Reporting porting ontheUseofHAVAFunds

HAVA requires the EAC to provide Congress with an annual reporting of the States’ use 

of these funds. In the most recent report issued by EAC, which covered expenditures 

through December 2007, we reported that the States had spent 60 percent of HAVA 

funds received. Of that amount, 76 percent was used to purchase or upgrade voting 

systems and implement statewide voter registration databases; 16 percent was to improve 

the administration of federal elections; 8 percent was not classified by the recipients; and 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent was used to implement provisional voting and polling 

place signage requirements. 

During the process of collecting HAVA expenditure information from the States, the 

EAC recognized that States needed clear direction and resources about the reporting 

requirements and how the funds could be used. To provide further assistance, EAC staff 

and the EAC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) teamed up to provide additional 

training and added more resources on the EAC Web site. Consequently, the latest report 

reflected an improvement in the timely submission and accuracy of the financial reports 

submitted by the States. Most States were very receptive to requests for additional 

information and worked with EAC staff to provide the revised reports in a timely fashion. 

Based on the frequently identified reporting issues, EAC is developing reporting guides, a 

HAVA grants policy manual, and the Commission will continue to work with States to 

resolve the issues identified and to ensure the appropriate use of HAVA funds. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 12 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

To provide further clarification about the proper use of HAVA funds, the Commission 

adopted an advisory opinion process requiring resolution to any inquiry from States or 

local jurisdictions regarding the use of HAVA funds to be decided by a vote of the 

Commission. The process includes a public comment period, and final advisory opinions 

are available to election officials and the public at www.eac.gov. 

HAVA spending reports are available at www.eac.gov, and, this summer, the EAC will 

issue a report covering HAVA expenditures by the States through 2008. 

Auditing the Use of HAVA Funds

HAVA gives EAC and other HAVA-granting agencies the authority to conduct regular 

audits of HAVA funds. The OIG, along with the Chief Financial Officer department, are 

responsible for audits of HAVA funds. The OIG has responsibility to audit programs and 

operations, and annual financial statements; semi-annual reports to Congress; and 

investigation of complaints of waste, fraud or abuse. 

Since the inception of the audit program in 2006, the OIG has issued 19 final reports, 

focusing on the States that have expended the most funds and involving the review of 

almost $800 million in expenditures. OIG reports are available at www.eac.gov. 

In addition to EAC’s regular audits, HAVA also provides for two other means of 

extraordinary audit authority – (a) funds are subject, at least once during the term of the 

program, to an audit by the Comptroller General; and (b) Section 902(b)(6) of HAVA 

allows EAC to conduct a “special audit” or “special examination” of the funds that are 

subject to regular audit under Section 902(b)(1). This special audit authority covers every 

HAVA program, including funds distributed under Title I, Title II, and programs 

administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. If the EAC determines 

that a special audit is warranted, by vote of the Commission, EAC will refer the matter to 

the OIG for review. 

Following the issuance of an audit report by the OIG, EAC management is required to 

resolve any audit findings, including recommendations for changes to policies and 

procedures and any findings that HAVA funds were misspent. This process requires EAC 

management to review the audit findings, develop monitoring programs for changes to 

policy or procedure, and quantify amounts of funding that are to be returned to the State’s 

election fund or to the U.S. Treasury. Once an initial decision is made by the Executive 

Director, the determination is sent to the audited State. The State then has the option of 

appealing the decision to the Commission. An appeal can entail a paper review of the 

record of the audit or a combination of paper review and a public hearing. The decision 

of the Commission is final and binding on the State. The EAC has issued a total of 43 

audit resolutions, and they are available at www.eac.gov. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 13 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

ELECTIONS RESEARCH

HAVA instructs the EAC to collect information about election administration issues and 

share that information with Congress, election officials, and the public. Data collected by 

the EAC enables policy makers and election officials to make well informed decisions to 

improve the administration of Federal elections. Below is a list of the most recent reports 

issued and activities conducted by the EAC research division. Research reports and 

related information are available at www.eac.gov. 

 Issued a report entitled The Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

(UOCAVA) Voters and the Electronic Transmission of Voting Materials in Four 

States. Section 241(b)(16) of HAVA requires the EAC to conduct a study of 

issues and challenges that are presented by the incorporation of communications 

and internet technologies in the federal, state and local electoral process. 

 Issued a report entitled Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal 

Elections. The report addresses the design planning process, general best 

practices, implementation insights, limitations and more for the design of ballots 

and polling place materials. The report also includes a digital library containing 

hundreds of camera-ready images of ballots and polling place materials that can 

be easily and affordably customized and used by state and local election officials. 

 Issued a report entitled Voter Hotlines. This study evaluates the effectiveness of 

different kinds of, and usages for, voter hotlines. 

 Issued a report entitled First-Time Voters. Section 244 of HAVA requires the 

EAC to study and report on the impact of the law on first-time voters who register 

to vote by mail and cast their ballots in person. Through case studies and voter 

focus groups, this research provides insight into the administrative difficulties 

imposed on election officials by this HAVA requirement and voters' perceptions 

of its efficacy. 

 Issued a voter information Web site study. In accordance with Section 245 of 

HAVA, the EAC studied the possible impact new communications or Internet 

technology systems used in the electoral process could have on voter participation 

rates, voter education and public accessibility. 

Implementing plementing Statewide tatewide VoterRegistration egistration Databases atabases

HAVA required that each State implement a statewide, computerized voter registration 

database, and in 2005 EAC issued voluntary guidance about the implementation of the 

databases. The EAC has contracted with the National Academies of Science (NAS) to 

study the implementation of the databases focusing on matching protocols, inter- and 

intra-state interoperability, and security and privacy issues. In May 2008, NAS issued an 

interim research report that included long- and short-term recommendations for 

improvements. The EAC held a public hearing in March 2009 to receive an update from 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 14 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

NAS and hear from election officials about database performance during the 2008 

election. The EAC will use the NAS research as the basis for future guidance to address 

overall maintenance and administrative best practices. 

Improving Collection of Election Administration Data

Data about how, where and when Americans vote help election officials and policy 

makers make well informed decisions about election administration policies and 

procedures. These data will ultimately help improve operations, identify voter needs, and 

track progress as well as provide valuable information to the public. 

Every two years EAC issues an Election Day Survey based on election administrationrelated data collected from the country’s 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 2008 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey instrument is divided into two sections. Section A 

captures information pertaining to NVRA, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and other election administration issues such as the 

casting and counting of provisional ballots and poll worker recruitment. Section B is the 

statutory overview, which asks states a series of questions about their laws, definitions, 

and procedures. The results from this data collection effort will be the basis for a series of 

reports to the public and Congress throughout 2009. 

In addition to the Election Day Survey, the EAC is also administering an election data 

collection grant program, authorized by Congress in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. The grant program provided $2 million each to five States to 

collect precinct-level data about election administration related to the November 2008 

general election. The program was designed to develop a series of best practices in data 

collection; improve data collection processes; enhance the capacity of States to collect 

accurate and complete election data; and to document and describe data collection 

practices, policies and procedures. 

Ten states applied for the grants, and winners were selected through an independent 

review process. The winning grant recipients were Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, 

Illinois and Wisconsin, and they are required to submit data they collect to the EAC by 

March 2009. 

In turn, the EAC is required to evaluate the grant program's overall success and provide 

Congress recommendations for changes to federal laws and regulations to improve the 

collection of data. Additional information about the pilot program and the winning 

recipients is available at www.eac.gov. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 15 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

PROVIDING ELECTION MANAGEMENT RESOURCES

One of the EAC’s top priorities under HAVA is to provide election officials resources 

and information to help them make election administration improvements at the local 

level. A major component of the effort to provide assistance is the Election Management 

Guidelines program, which complement the 

voluntary voting system guidelines' technical 

standards for voting equipment. The guidelines 

address a wide variety of topics from pre-election 

testing and auditing to poll worker training, and the 

materials are sent to election officials in every 

state. Election management materials issued in 

preparation for the 2008 election covered the 

following subjects: 

 Acceptance Testing 

 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

 Pre-election and Parallel Testing 

 Developing an Audit Trail 

 Contingency Planning and Change 

Management 

 Ballot Building 

 Absentee Voting and Vote by Mail 

 Polling Place and Vote Center Management 

 Media and Public Relations 

In addition to the management guidelines program, 

the EAC also held six public workshops that 

facilitated election officials sharing best practices 

and included discussions about contingency 

planning, ballot design, and voter empowerment. 

The EAC also produced training videos about 

polling place accessibility, contingency planning, 

and polling place management. Election 

management materials are available at 

www.eac.gov. 

Recruiting Poll Workers

Election officials consistently cite the need for more poll workers. The success of the 

election rests in large measure on the turnout and performance of this temporary 

workforce. The EAC does not yet know the number of poll workers that served on 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 16 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

Election Day in 2008; however, anecdotal reports suggest that jurisdictions across the 

board had sufficient numbers of satisfactorily trained poll workers. 

We commend Congress for funding The Help America Vote College Program, which has 

certainly been instrumental in helping to recruit poll workers. As a result, one of the 

EAC’s top priorities has been to increase poll worker involvement among younger 

citizens. The EAC has awarded a total of $1.65 million for colleges and nonprofits to 

recruit students to serve as poll workers. Effective models for recruiting younger poll 

workers have emerged from this program that can be adopted and replicated by other 

communities. The EAC used the program to raise awareness leading up to the 2008 

election for the need for poll workers and to encourage younger citizens to serve their 

community on Election Day. In addition, the EAC produced and distributed manuals 

about recruiting, training and retaining poll workers, including college students. 

The Mock Election Program also encourages youth participation by enabling students to 

participate in simulated elections with voting equipment, ballots, and poll workers. Last 

year, the EAC awarded ten organizations from nine states an average of $20,000 to 

educate secondary school students and their parents about the electoral process through 

staged national elections. 

Grant recipients and additional information about the Help America Vote College and 

Mock Election programs are available at www.eac.gov. 

INFORMATION FOR VOTERS

During the 2008 Federal election, preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 133 

million Americans voted, 10 million more than the last presidential election. Empowering 

voters to participate in the electoral process by making sure they had the information they 

needed to vote was also critical to the success of Election Day 2008. 

States’ election Web sites allowed voters to look up their polling place, view sample 

ballots, learn about voting systems, and in some cases, verify their registration. Many 

election offices also provided information over the phone through dedicated voter 

hotlines or regular office phone lines. 

In 2008, the EAC complemented the public education efforts of election officials by 

using its national platform building upon their efforts to prepare and educate voters about 

Election Day through media interviews. The Commission’s message of voter preparation 

focused on the following themes: reminder of registration deadlines, what to do before 

and on Election Day, verifying registration status, finding poll locations, volunteering as 

a poll worker and early and absentee voting options. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 17 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

The EAC posted key information for voters on the Commission’s Web site including 

registration deadlines, voting options, information for uniformed and overseas voters and 

toll-free phone numbers and Web site addresses for election offices in each state. This 

information was made available through an interactive United States map featured 

prominently on the home page. 

The Voter’s Guide to Federal Elections, available in seven languages, was also featured 

prominently on the EAC Web site in the Voter Information Center. The guide was 

designed to help voters successfully navigate the Federal elections process, from 

registering to vote to casting a ballot on Election Day. In addition to the basics of ballotcasting, the guide also included information on eligibility and early voting, as well as the 

registration and voting process for military and civilians living abroad and polling place 

services that make voting more accessible. For voters who needed language assistance, 

the EAC created The Glossary of Election Terminology and translated it into Chinese, 

Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Vietnamese and Spanish. 

The EAC also reached out to college students by holding a conference call on voter 

preparation with college print journalists. After this call, journalists from six papers in 

Texas, Wisconsin, Colorado, California and Pennsylvania wrote stories to inform voters 

of the process. Our outreach also included scores of national and local radio and 

television broadcast outlets across the nation. We were also successful in getting 

messages to voters through leading African American media outlets, and EAC staff fluent 

in Spanish also provided information to voters through Hispanic media outlets. 

Shortly before the election, we held a public workshop on empowering voters. Voter 

advocates and election officials spoke about efforts to engage voters in the process. 

Additionally, a couple of weeks before the election the EAC hosted a panel discussion at 

the National Press Club with secretaries of state and national journalists on reporting 

election results. The aim was to bring officials and journalists together to learn more 

about the reporting process from each perspective, and work more effectively in 

delivering timely, accurate results to voters. 

LOOKING FORWARD

The EAC has reached many HAVA milestones during the Commission’s brief existence. 

We have adopted the 2005 VVSG and have already issued the next iteration for public 

comment. The Federal government’s first voting system certification program is up and 

running and the EAC has certified its first voting system. The Commission has collected 

and distributed valuable data about uniformed and overseas voters, provided best 

practices on ballot design and established the annual Election Day Survey, the largest and 

most comprehensive survey about election administration ever conducted by the Federal 

government. The EAC has one of the most comprehensive language assistance programs 

in the Federal government, offering a wide range of resources for voters in seven 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 18 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

languages, including professional translation of major portions of the EAC Web site in 

these same languages. 

During the coming year, the EAC will focus inward to improve internal operations. The 

Commission has adopted a strategic plan to create a receptive and productive agency 

capable of the unique leadership role it has been given. Strategic plan components 

include serving as a national clearinghouse, a manager of federal financial assistance, a 

certifier of voting systems, and a resource for election officials throughout the country 

regarding the administration of Federal elections. 

In FY 2009, the EAC will embark upon implementing its strategic plan as well as 

incorporating its new expertise in the areas of budgeting and performance management as 

well as implementing the following goals as identified in the EAC’s strategic plan, 

available at www.eac.gov. 

Goal One -- Communicate 

Communicate timely and accurate information on the effective administration of 

elections for Federal office and on the operations and services offered EAC by operating 

the EAC clearinghouse effectively; responding to outside requests timely and accurately; 

and conveying results of EAC operations and accomplishments. 

Goal Two: Fund and Oversee 

Accurately and timely disburse Federal financial assistance administered by the EAC; 

effectively monitor Federal financial assistance administered by the EAC; and provide 

technical assistance and guidance on the management of Federal financial assistance 

administered by the EAC to help the States maximize the use of the funds and reduce the 

risk of inappropriate use of funds and accounting errors. 

Goal Three: Study, Guide and Assist 

Complete research on issues that improve the administration of elections for Federal 

office and expeditiously report on critical administration subjects and election data; 

identify and collect required and useful data on election administration practices, voting 

methods and demographics. Make recommendations for improving the quality of 

practices, methods, and data; issue guides, translations and other tools that are timely and 

useful; update and maintain a national mail voter registration application and report to the 

Congress as required by NVRA. 

Goal 4: Test and Certify 

Develop and update the voluntary voting system guidelines; provide for the accreditation 

and revocation of accreditation of independent, non-Federal laboratories qualified to test 

voting systems to Federal standards; administer the testing, certification, decertification, 

and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 566-3100 (p), (202) 566-3127 (f), www.eac.gov 

Page 19 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections 

April 1, 2009 

Goal 5: Manage 

Implement a high performance organization. 

The following chart illustrates 2009 salaries and expenses based upon the strategic plan 

goals. 

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

C om m u nic ation s

G ran ts

 O IG

R es ear ch

T est ing

N IST

C om m iss ion ers

 Bo ard s

ED

 CO O

C F O

 O GC

Adm inistr ation

2009 Salaries and Expenses by Function

Goal One – Communications and Clearinghouse $1,109,247 

Goal Two – Fund and Oversee $3,664,429 

Inspector general 

Grants management 

Mock Election and Help America Vote College Poll Worker grants 

Goal Three – Study, Guide and Assist $1,236,275 

Goal Four – Test and Certify $5,993,016 

 National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Goal Five – Manage $5,956,033 

 Executive Director 

 Chief Operating Officer 

 Chief Financial Office 

General Counsel 

Administration (rent, telecom and common support services)