1

United States Election Assistance Commission

Standards Board Annual Meeting

Held at 

1:33 p.m.

Friday, July 31, 2020

Via Zoom Meeting

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
2

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

Commission (EAC) Standards Board Annual Meeting that was held on Friday, 

July 31, 2020. The meeting convened at 1:33 p.m. and adjourned at 5:04 p.m.

***

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

-- virtual format is new for this annual meeting, and I know 

we all prefer to be seeing each other in person. There are many 

items on the agenda today, and we appreciate your patience in this 

format. A critical item for discussion is the VVSG 2.0 requirements. 

This meeting is another important step in keeping that final 

approval process moving, allowing the design, manufacture, and 

testing of new voting systems by manufacturers in the years to 

come. 

Even though the general election is on everyone's mind,

thank you for recognizing the importance of the VVSG 2.0 and its 

impact on long-term planning. We want to make sure this iteration 

can produce real advancements in voting systems technology 

moving forward. This meeting is a unique opportunity to discuss

what the impact of these new requirements will be on the greater 

election community, the voting process, and the voting systems that 

you may purchase in the future. 

It is also important to the EAC that, because we want to 

design a VVSG testing program that meets the needs of you and 

your colleagues, please don't hesitate to ask questions or voice 

your opinion. The Commissioners and staff value your input and 
3

perspective. It adds real-world context to the sometimes technical 

debate over requirements and the impact of decisions. I want you 

to discuss today's software independence or interoperability or 

wireless, Bluetooth, or VPN systems in polling places, the 

innovation clause, and hear your opinions on those issues. 

On behalf of my fellow Commissioners, I'd like to convey our 

appreciation to all those who have contributed to the VVSG 2.0 

development process thus far. This includes staff members at 

NIST and the EAC, members of the election community, and the 

broader public who have been engaged in this process and 

especially those serving on the TGDC and the EAC Board of 

Advisors and you, the EAC Standards Board, who play critical roles 

in developing and reviewing the VVSG. 

With that, I'll turn the meeting back -- well, I say back over. 

I'll turn it over to the Standards Board Chairman Brad King. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you very much, Chairman Hovland and Vice 

Chairman Palmer. We appreciate the work of the EAC and 

coordinating this virtual meeting. Over the last several days and 

weeks we've worked with EAC staff members to conduct dress 

rehearsals of various technical parts of this meeting, and for those 

who are growing accustomed to Zoom meetings, I hope you'll find 

that we will not have too many episodes of turbulence, but we'll 
4

improvise as necessary to conduct the business that is before the 

body and make an effort to do so efficiently, but at the same time 

make sure that everyone has an opportunity to voice their views. 

Please remember that we are being recorded and broadcast 

live on YouTube. If you are logging in, please make certain that 

your first and last names are included so that it's easier to 

determine who in fact is speaking or requesting recognition to 

speak. 

With that, our first step is a roll call to determine a quorum, 

and so, I will call on Steve Trout, our Secretary, with the assistance 

of the EAC staff, to state the current participants who are members 

of the Standards Board and determine if we have the required 56 

members present. 

MR. TROUT:

All right. Good morning -- good afternoon for most of you. 

Thanks for being here. And we're doing this a little bit different so 

that hopefully we don't have to go through the entire list and read 

the entire roll. So, Mr. Chair, my understanding was we were going 

to read the names of the participants that have logged in. Is that 

correct, or are we going to take those as present? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I think for the record we need to read those in if you would, 

please, Steve. 
5

MR. TROUT:

Excellent. And so, I'll apologize now for those of you whose 

names I mispronounce. And the way they're listed here in Zoom is 

alphabetical by first name, and so, that's how we'll go through. And 

I know that there are some people in here that, as I'm going 

through, I'm going to call on you and your EAC staffer or NIST or 

some other nonvoting member, and so if I make a mistake and call 

your name, if you can just let me know that you're not a Standards 

Board member.

***

[Stephen Trout, Secretary of the Standards Board, called roll.] 

***

MR. TROUT:

And at this point, Mr. Chair, we have 60, which meets our 

quorum requirement. Is there anyone else that has not checked in 

either through the chat or on the phone?

[No response]

MR. TROUT:

All right. Mr. Chair, we have a quorum. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your able work in navigating 

through the list of names. It's the most difficult work a Secretary 

does on the Standards Board. 
6

I declare that the July 31st, 2020, meeting of the Standards 

Board is called to order with a quorum. 

The first item of business is approval of the minutes of the 

April 11th through 12th, 2019, meeting of the Standards Board, 

which were previously circulated. For beginning of discussion, is 

there a motion to approve those minutes, as submitted? And when 

you make your motion or second, please identify yourself. 

MS. CEGAVSKE:

This is Barbara Cegavske from Nevada, and move for 

approval. 

MR. PETTIT:

This is Jerry Pettit from Washington. Second. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

The motion has been made and seconded. Is there 

discussion? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, the question is on the adoption of the motion 

to approve the minutes of the 2019 Standards Board meeting. All 

those in favor will signify by voice vote by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Opposed, signify by saying nay.
7

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

The ayes have it. The motion to approve the minutes from 

the last meeting is approved. 

Our next item is approval of the agenda of the meeting that 

we are currently conducting. Can I ask EAC staff -- thank you -- to 

share that agenda? Again, for purposes of discussion, is there

motion to approve the agenda, as presented? 

MR. STANTON:

So moved, Durward Stanton, Mississippi. 

MS. GOECKNER:

Seconded, Barbara Goeckner, Wisconsin. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Motion has been made and seconded. Is there discussion? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, those in favor of the motion, signify by saying 

aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Those opposed, signify by saying nay.

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:
8

I know we have received one abstention in the comments. 

The motion passes. The agenda is approved. 

The next item of business under the bylaws is for the 

Chairman to appoint members of the Election Certification 

Committee meeting. We will be filling a vacant seat on the 

Executive Board as part of this meeting. For purposes of 

certification of the election process, I appoint Ray Valenzuela, Joe 

Gloria, Debbie Erickson, Mark Goins, and myself to serve as 

members of that committee. We will report back after the election 

has been conducted. 

One moment here. And now we have a report from the 

Proxy Committee. The Chair recognizes Ray Valenzuela with a 

report of proxies. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, we do 

have three proxies. We have Robert Dezmelyk for New Hampshire 

who proxies his ability to vote for the Standards Board meeting on 

Friday, July 31st, to Anthony Stevens, New Hampshire. We have 

Carol A. Thompson from Alaska who proxies to Gail Fenumiai from 

Alaska. And we have Julie L. Flynn from Maine or -- who -- yes, 

Julie L. Flynn from Maine who proxies to Brad King, Indiana. And 

those are what we have as of this moment in time. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
9

Thank you very much. I appreciate the report of the Proxy 

Committee. Without objection, those proxies will be accepted. 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, it's so ordered. 

The next item on the agenda is a review of the Federal

statute that governs the operations of the Standards Board and 

other Federal agencies. We will receive a presentation and 

slideshow from Kevin Rayburn, EAC General Counsel. Kevin, if 

you could please proceed. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Thank you very much. I'm pulling up the screen share. We'll 

get started. All right. 

Well, thank you. My name is Kevin Rayburn. I'm the new 

General Counsel for the Election Assistance Commission. As a 

brief background, I came from the Georgia Secretary of State's 

office where I was the Deputy Elections Director and Deputy 

General Counsel. Before that, I worked in the Tennessee 

Secretary of State's office, and before that, private practice. So,

I've come from State election administration. I know how difficult 

under normal circumstances elections are, how complicated, and 

especially this year, 10 times more so. So, I really appreciate 
10

everyone taking the time today to join this meeting knowing how 

busy you all are. 

So, I'm going to give an overview of the various advisory 

boards that serve the Election Assistance Commission. I'm going 

to talk about the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the various roles 

and duties of the boards and the individual members. 

The Election Assistance Commission has three advisory 

boards, the Standards Board, the Board of Advisors, and the 

Technical Guidelines Development Committee, referred to as 

TGDC. HAVA actually creates these boards. They are a creature 

of that congressional action. And these boards are subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

I'm now going to talk about the duties of the various boards. 

The Standards Board and the Board of Advisors actually have 

parallel duties. The duties are set forth in HAVA, and they're 

actually both lumped together in the same provision. The statutory 

duties laid out in HAVA are that the Standards Board and the Board 

of Advisors are required to review the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines, the voluntary guidance under Title III, and best-practice 

recommendations regarding overseas voting. 

The voluntary guidance under Title III, what that's referring to 

is the guidance the EAC has put out regarding the requirements 

under HAVA, section 301, 302, and 303. Three-oh-one is the 
11

requirements for voting systems, so even if a jurisdiction or a State

doesn't use an EAC-certified system, the system they do use for 

Federal elections is required to meet the requirements in HAVA, 

and that's section 301. Section 302, the provisions on provisional 

voting during Federal elections, and section 303 has to do with 

statewide voter registration systems. And the EAC has put out 

guidance and periodically updates that guidance. And one of your 

duties is to review that guidance. 

The other main duty that was referenced there is one of the 

things you're taking up today, which is your review and feedback on 

the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. And today on your 

agenda is in reference to the requirements. 

The other duties that are not mentioned in the duties section 

but otherwise in HAVA, the EAC staff will also from time to time 

seek consultation and guidance on its mission, its programs, and its

long-term goals so that there is a back-and-forth that's ongoing 

between staff and the Standards Board. Now, TGDC, their primary 

goal is to help the Executive Director of the EAVS -- or, sorry, of the 

EAC draft the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and 

amendments. And once it goes through that process in the TGDC, 

it's then referred to the Standards Board and Board of Advisors for 

review. 
12

So, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, otherwise called or 

referred to as FACA, it governs the establishment, the operation, 

and the ending, the termination of advisory committees. The act 

was passed in 1972 and there's currently, I believe, over 1,000 

advisory committees that are providing guidance to various 

government agencies in the Federal government to the President, 

and so they can be created by statute like the three for the EAC 

were. They can be created under the presidential -- President's 

authority, but it can also actually be created by the agency's own 

authority, so the EAC could create additional committees under this 

pact. 

The operations and management are largely governed and 

operated by the Designated Federal Officer and the Committee 

Management Officer who ensures that the requirements of FACA

for transparency, records-keeping, that that is all met. 

And the act actually has a sunset provision for all advisory 

committees. They are subject to a two-year sunset. So, every two 

years, the charter of each committee needs to be refiled for it to 

survive, for it to be able to continue on. If it's not refiled, it goes 

inactive. And if it's not refiled within -- every two years, then you

cannot actually have a board meeting until it is filed. And so that's 

a way to ensure that the -- there's just an automatic process for 

older or non-used advisory committees to fall off. 
13

Now, the duties and responsibilities of board membership;

your main responsibility is to participate, to engage, to show up to 

the meetings and to participate when you can to subcommittees, to 

doing those. And you should comport yourself with integrity, and 

you need to ensure that you're not using your position as a member 

of this advisory board for your own personal benefit. You should 

not be using it to promote yourself, your services, products, or to --

the point is to serve the EAC, to help that Federal agency do its 

duties to serve its stakeholders and to the American voter. And 

then the law also requires that if you do have direct 

communications with Congress, it should not be in your official 

capacity. When you're operating in your official capacity, that line 

of communication should go to the EAC. 

Now, there are laws restricting lobbying, so if you are a 

federal -- federally registered lobbyist, you cannot be a member of 

an advisory committee. So, if there is anyone who currently is a 

federally registered lobbyist, after this meeting or within the next 

couple days, please reach out to us, reach out to me so we can 

review that with you. But the law does not allow you to be 

simultaneously a federally registered lobbyist and a member of an 

advisory committee like the Standards Board. And, likewise, if you 

were previously within, you know, pretty recent times a federally 

registered lobbyist, go ahead and reach out to us as well, just so 
14

we can make sure that has been correctly severed, so there's not 

even misperception of an issue there. 

But you can, of course, still communicate with your State

legislatures and Congress in your own capacity, in your personal 

capacity. But if you do engage with Congress or State legislatures 

on EAC board business, Standards Board business, you should 

make clear that this is not in your official capacity as a member of 

the EAC advisory board, of the Standards Board, but it is in your 

personal or some other capacity. 

So, the Designated Federal Officer is the chief person to 

ensure that the various requirements are met for the committees. 

And this includes making sure the charter is filed every two years 

with the various agencies and oversight committees that has to be 

filed with, also making sure that the board meetings are approved, 

the agendas are approved, and that minutes are correctly prepared 

and, once approved, also put on the website and made available to 

the public. 

Now, one of the requirements in FACA for the various 

committees is that they need to be balanced in terms of point of 

view and geographic representation. And that way that the -- the 

advice the Federal agencies are receiving are representative of all 

of the United States and not just segments. And so, in our case 

with the Standards Board, HAVA has a great process to make sure 
15

that's met because the 55 States and territories are all represented 

with two members, and then, those two members cannot be of the 

same party, so that way the views are represented across the 

board and, geographically, we are well-represented across the 

board. 

The meetings of the boards are open to the public. That is 

not necessarily true for subcommittee meetings, but the meetings 

do need to be accessible to the public. 

We have to keep detailed minutes of all these meetings, and 

that includes who was present, who gave presentations, the 

content, what were the discussions, the conclusions, the time, date, 

and location of the meetings, as well as any referrals or resolutions 

passed, so we appreciate the time taken to do things like a roll call 

and making sure we have good records of these meetings. 

So here are the currently -- the current DFOs for the EAC, 

and it's -- we have Vice Chair Donald Palmer is the current 

Commissioner that's the DFO for the Standards Board. And here 

are the various citations to laws and regulations I referenced in my 

presentation. That way if you want to jot this down or later look at 

this presentation, you can look at the source law yourself. 

And that -- Chair, that concludes my presentation. Thank 

you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
16

Thank you very much. I appreciate the thorough review of 

the applicable statute. Are there questions or comments from the 

membership for Kevin with regard to FACA? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, once again, Kevin, thank you very much for 

your presentation. We appreciate it and the work you do to ensure 

that we're in compliance with the applicable Federal statutes. It's --

MR. RAYBURN:

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

It's my honor at this time to recognize the Executive Director

of the EAC, Mona Harrington. Mona?

MS. HARRINGTON:

Good afternoon. Thank you, Brad. 

We're providing you with an update highlighting EAC 

activities. The EAC is working to support election officials like all of 

you and your colleagues around the country and the voters you 

serve during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are unprecedented 

circumstances for everyone across the elections community. 

Currently, many jurisdictions are preparing to implement new 

pandemic-related election policies and procedures. In this 

environment, we know election officials are striving to meet the 
17

wide-ranging needs of all voters. We stand ready to assist you. 

We're closely monitoring the needs of election officials and actively 

expanding available guidelines and resources. We're tracking new 

developments and preparing to marshal Federal assistance where 

necessary. The EAC Commissioners and I look forward to 

continuing to work with all of you and other election officials during 

this crisis to ensure that the right to vote is safe, secure, and 

accessible for all Americans. 

As you are all aware, on December 20th, 2019, the 

President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 into 

law. The act included $425 million in new HAVA funds made 

available to States to improve the administration of elections for 

Federal office, including to enhance technology and make election 

security improvements. We awarded all the FY '20 HAVA grant 

funds to all States and territories with the exception of one State

that hasn't made its request yet. 

On March 27th, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid 

Relief and Economic Securities -- Security Act, CARES, into law. 

The act included $400 million in new HAVA emergency funds made 

available to States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the 

coronavirus for the 2020 Federal election cycle. EAC is pleased to 

report we awarded all 56 CARES Act grants on April 6. As of 

today, all States have requested disbursement of the funds and 
18

submitted descriptions of their anticipated activities. The EAC 

hosted numerous webinars for the States on the CARES Act. 

While officials prepare for increased mail voting, modified 

polling place locations, and other new costs, accessibility must be a 

priority. The right to a private and independent vote for those with 

disabilities is protected both by the Help America Vote Act and the 

equal access provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

HAVA and CARES Act funds are available to assist officials with 

achieving accessible elections for all voters during this crisis. For 

further information on allocating other grant resources in this area, 

please visit the FAQs on the EAC website. 

The EAC has worked hard to staff up since receiving our FY 

budget -- FY '20 budget in January. New staff include General 

Counsel Kevin Rayburn -- you just heard from him --

communications and clearinghouse director and associate counsel, 

a senior grants program manager, a new cyber division with 

multiple staff members, two new additions to the Testing and 

Certification team, a financial officer, and several other positions 

have been hired, assisting the agency performing its mission. 

The new cyber staff have extensive security credentials and 

are implementing cybersecurity capabilities to assist State and local 

jurisdictions. They're working on releasing cybersecurity training 

modules, cybersecurity best practices, blogs, workshops to assist 
19

with crisis and risk management and enhance election security 

preparedness page with cyber resources from our Federal partners. 

The EAC is also committed to moving the process of 

adopting the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, VVSG 2.0, 

forward. We have hosted VVSG 2.0 virtual hearings on March 

27th, May 6th, and another on May 20th, and we're reviewing the 

testing and certification program manual and working on draft test 

assertions to make the changes required to support VVSG 2.0. 

In 2018 and 2020, tremendous progress was made toward 

the adoption of VVSG 2.0. The VVSG 2.0 represents a significant

leap forward in defining standards that will serve as the template for 

the next generation of secure, accessible, and accurate voting 

systems. 

Following extensive work done by EAC Commissioners, 

staff, the TGDC, and NIST, the EAC submitted the proposed 2.0 

requirements to the Standards Board and Board of Advisors for 

review on March 11th. On March 24th, the EAC initiated a 90-day 

public comment period on the VVSG 2.0 requirements that 

concluded on June 22nd. We received 77 sets of comments and a 

total of 1,660 comments. The overall messages that we 

summarized as far as the comments were concerned related to 

vagueness of the requirements, glossary modification requests, 

inconsistent terminology, concerns that some of the requirements 
20

are not measurable unless associated with testing assertion, and 

other accessibility-related concerns. 

The EAC is working on several parallel paths in order to 

submit documents for review by the Commissioners and approval 

by the end of the year, which includes the requirements, the 

guidelines, testing assertions, the glossary, the program manual, 

and the laboratory program manual. 

EAC testing and certification and cyber programs meet twice 

a week with NIST to prepare and evaluate and resolve the 

comments that were submitted. We currently have gotten through 

Principle 1. The EAC staff is in the process of drafting test 

assertions that will be presented to the VVSG 2.0 implementation 

working group, which consists of representatives from all EACregister manufacturers, EAC-accredited VSTLs, NIST, and other 

technical experts. This working group meets once a week. 

That concludes my update. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you very much, Mona. I appreciate the update with 

regard to the extensive activities conducted by the EAC. 

Are there questions or comments for Executive Director 

Harrington from the membership? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:
21

Hearing none, we want to thank you again. And we'll move 

on to the next item of our agenda. This consists of committee 

reports on two proposed amendments to the bylaws. I understand 

again that EAC staff is going to present the text of the -- I think I 

was muted there for a moment. I'll assume I can be heard at this 

point. 

I was stating that the next item on the agenda is the 

consideration of a committee report from the Bylaws Committee, 

and I understand that EAC staff will once again be able to present 

copies of the pertinent documents for these amendments on screen 

for members to view the text, although they were furnished some 

time ago to the membership as a whole. 

If I could ask -- there we go. Thank you. 

Let me provide a little background. I serve as Chair of the 

Bylaws Committee, and in 2018 we encountered a problem 

regarding the filling of vacancies on the Executive Board. There 

are two provisions in the bylaws regarding how to fill vacancies. 

One is when a vacancy occurs very shortly within the final 90 days 

before a scheduled Commission meeting to appoint an interim to 

serve, and the other is for a full-fledged election process, which can 

take the form of mail-in absentee ballots or an in-person meeting of 

the Standards Board. But, unfortunately, the dates created a gap, 

which prevented the Executive Board from filling the vacancy that 
22

resulted when Edgardo Cortes ceased to be a member of the 

board. 

The amendment to the bylaws eliminates that conflict and 

provides for the standard full election by the entire membership at 

all times except during that final premeeting period when the 

provision to provide for interims remains in effect. 

For purposes of discussion, is there a motion to adopt the 

committee -- or rather the amendment recommended by the Bylaws 

Committee? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I'm sorry, can the 

person who made that motion repeat it? You may have been cut 

off. Or another person can make that motion if they wish. 

MR. GOINS:

I'll make that motion. Mark Goins of Tennessee. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there a second? 

MS. CEGAVSKE:

Barbara Cegavske from Nevada, second.

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there discussion of the proposed amendment 

to the bylaws? 

MR. SCHWAB:

I got a quick question. This is Secretary Schwab out of 

Kansas. And I'm not sure if this has to do with the amendment, but 
23

looking at the slide in front of you under the Standards Board will 

under subsection 1, the very first word is advice. Should that not 

be advise? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, I think it should. 

MR. SCHWAB:

All right. That's my only comment. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That will be later work for the Bylaws Committee. I 

appreciate that, Secretary. Thank you. 

Are there further comments on the proposed amendment?

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the 

adoption of the motion to amend, signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

And, again, we have an abstention from Jay Ashcroft. 

All those opposed, signify by saying nay. 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

The ayes have it. The motion to amend is adopted. 
24

If we can proceed to the second of the two proposed bylaws 

amendments, this deals with a similar issue that occurred in 2019 

regarding continuity. We had a situation where there was a 

vacancy in both the office of Chairman and Secretary. I was 

currently serving as Vice Chairman, but if I had left the scene, we 

would have been without any officers for the Standards Board and 

no way to fill the vacancy to conduct the business. 

And so, the second of the two proposed amendments allows 

the Chair to appoint an existing member of the Executive Board to 

fill a vacant spot as an officer. And in the unlikely event that there 

are no officers, as in the scenario I described, the vacant offices 

would be filled by the current members of the Executive Board

based on their seniority as members, and since there will always be 

a tie, for the tie to be broken by the individual whose State appears 

first in the alphabet having seniority. There may be other methods 

to break that tie, but that seemed the most predictable and 

straightforward. 

So for purposes of discussion, is there a motion to approve 

the second of the two bylaws amendments?

MR. GOINS:

Move to approve. Mark Goins, Tennessee. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there a second? 
25

MR. GOUGH:

Second, Lance Gough, Illinois. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there discussion with regard to the second of 

the amendments? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, the question is on the adoption of the 

amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Those opposed, say nay. 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

We have received an abstention from Mr. Ashcroft. 

The ayes have it. The amendment to the bylaws has been 

approved. 

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work 

through some of the minutia, which seems highly technical until you 

actually find yourself in one of the scenarios that I described. 

I note that our time is 2:20. The next item on our agenda is 

the VVSG 2.0 requirement discussions and vote. I anticipate, of 

course, that will take the largest part of our time. We had built in,
26

during staff discussions, a potential short 5- to 10-minute break if 

members wanted to take one. Is there a request to take that 

break? If so, indicate yes. Say yes. 

[Chorus of yeses]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Hearing a significant number of yeses, the meeting 

will stand in recess, let's say, until 2:30. Please do not sign off of 

Zoom. We want you to remain checked in. But we'll resume the 

meeting at 2:30. Thank you. 

[Recess]

MR. ARDOIN:

We're already 10 minutes past. Can somebody pull this 

thing back together? 

MS. HARRINGTON:

This is Mona from the EAC. It looks like Brad got knocked 

off, and he'll be back in momentarily.

MR. ARDOIN:

Thank you, Mona. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Mona, you just let me know if we need to move on if we can't

get Brad back on. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Yeah, I think he's coming back on right now. 
27

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Okay. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Thank you, everyone, for being patient. 

[Pause]

MS. HARRINGTON:

Commissioner Palmer, you might want to go ahead just for 

the -- I think he's having internet difficulty on his end. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Chairman Palmer, this is Ray. I can take it from here if you 

wish as the Vice Chair since we're just leading into, it looks like, the 

VVSG presentation anyways, so I will use this opportunity to 

secede Brad as Chair. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Go ahead. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

And I'll invoke the secession rules, but it's --

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

It looks like it's going, yeah, go ahead. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Okay. So where we're at, it looks like it's just -- we're on the 

spot where we're at the VVSG 2.0 requirements discussion and 

vote, and I know that Brad had indicated this may be -- you know, 
28

we want to definitely spend some time with it, but according to our 

agenda, we're just kicking off NIST's presentation where Mary can, 

if she's able to, come in and share the screen. We'll just go through 

that and come to the Q&A after that. 

Mary?

MS. BRADY:

Can you all hear me? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Yes. 

MR. GOUGH:

Yes. 

MS. BRADY:

Okay, great. Well, it appears as though we're having a little 

bit of trouble sharing my presentation, so I'll just go ahead and 

speak to it, and if it pops up in the meantime, then that's great. You 

know, we'll continue on from there, although you'll probably have to 

let me know if it pops up because I'll be looking at a different 

screen. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Okay. It looks like you froze. 

MS. BRADY:

Okay. Did I freeze? 

MR. VALENZUELA:
29

You're good now. We can hear you. 

MS. BRADY:

Okay. Well, let me just -- I have just a very short introduction 

to the VVSG. I just want to mention it's very hard to introduce, you 

know, 200-plus pages in a very short amount of time. But today I 

just want to let you know that even though it's me here speaking 

that I'm joined by the rest of the NIST team. We have Sharon 

Laskowski, who's our human factors lead; Gema Howell, our 

cybersecurity lead; John Wack, who leads on a number of the 

voting methods, interoperability and transparency; and Ben Long, 

who's leading the hardware, software, and testing; and our TGDC 

liaison Patricia Wilburg. 

I also want to tell you that I am leading the effort today, but I 

am retiring at the end of August and Lisa Carnahan will be joining 

us as well. She'll be taking over for me. 

So, let me just start off by giving you a little bit of 

background. We'll talk a little bit about what's new in the VVSG 

requirements, and then I have some of the -- we've gone over the 

public comments, and I have some general themes if you want to 

go over some of them or we're happy to just take your questions at 

that point. You know, we can do whatever is best for you all. 

So, as you know, the VVSG, you know, in -- the 

development of the VVSG takes place initially inside the TGDC, 
30

and NIST works very closely with the TGDC in order to put together 

the initial draft. This time around -- in the past, there's been a backand-forth between NIST and the TGDC largely with NIST going out 

and doing research bringing topics back into the TGDC and 

iteratively going over the various components of the VVSG. 

This time around, we decided to engage a set of public 

working groups so we could get all stakeholders at the table at the 

beginning of the process rather than waiting till the end of the 

process and to -- so we could tap into as many experts as possible 

and get continual feedback while we were going through the 

development of the VVSG. 

This was done, these public working groups. It was a set of 

about 600-plus unique individuals, and they were broken up 

between election groups and what we called initially constituency 

groups but later called them technical groups, technical working 

groups. So, the election groups went through and set up -- defined 

a set of election processes that we used as part of the development 

process, and then the technical groups took over. So, the -- and 

this took place over, you know, over quite a bit of time. We held 

biweekly meetings of these groups to really keep the process 

moving along. 

And we would -- we took that information and brought it back 

into TGDC meetings. You know, NIST would go over it, you know, 
31

get feedback from the stakeholders and the public working groups, 

but then we would put our own, you know, sort of slant on it and 

bring it into the TGDC deliberations. 

Over the last year -- it's hard to believe that it's been a year 

that we've been at this -- we -- you know, we initially started by 

bringing the TGDC up-to-date last summer in the August and 

September time frame, so, you know, we're almost a year. And we

started by bringing them up to the current status of the 

requirements and the open issues. We -- at that point we met 

almost monthly until we got it across the finish line. 

At the September meeting, you know, some of the open 

issues that we went over were the -- whether or not common data 

formats should be included. So, for those of you who don't know, 

the common data formats are simply data change formats where 

you can define what kind of data -- well, what you want to call the 

data and what data you're exchanging between two components. 

So, these were developed by NIST and, you know, through a 

working group process as well for election reporting, event logging, 

cast vote records, and voter records interchange, so the question 

was whether or not they should be in there. There has been a lot of 

discussion back-and-forth on the benefits of having them in, but it 

really sort of does enhance transparency. It allows you to more 

easily audit systems and, down the road, it could, you know, lead to 
32

plug-and-play interoperability and component-based testing. So 

that was one open issue. 

Another was indirect voter associations, you know, whether 

or not they should be allowed. Some States actually require it,

require you to map the voter to the record until such time that the 

voter can -- whether or not -- until such time you can determine 

whether or not the voter is eligible to vote so that -- there was a 

question on it. There was a question on barcodes. You know, first 

off, should we have them, and the later, we talked more about if we 

do have them, you know, what constraints should we put on them? 

And finally, on the use of wireless and internet technology and so 

on, you know, what types of networking technologies were we 

going to permit? 

So that all sort of kicked off those discussions in September. 

There were several areas where we're required to do a bit more 

work. In November we looked more at the use of E2E systems, 

you know, because part of -- a cornerstone of the VVSG is this 

notion of software independence, which it -- any -- sort of a simple 

definition of software independence is if you -- if there is an error 

during the election, it can't go undetectable, so, you know, many 

people say that, hey, that just leads to paper because, you know, 

you have paper as a -- you know, paper as your vote of record, and 

you can always go back to the paper and count it. 
33

So, you know, we wanted to allow for future innovation and, 

you know, there's been a fair amount of discussion on these end-toend systems, so we wanted to allow for that possibility. So, we had 

some more work to do on those requirements to keep them in the 

VVSG, and so we presented them in November and they were 

accepted. 

There are some discussions on software independence and 

ballot secrecy to ensure that, you know, when you were looking 

at -- and ways to actually implement risk-limiting audits that you 

could actually ensure ballot secrecy as well, continued discussions 

on wireless and internet. That was one of those issues that was 

really sticky and took us several meetings to get through. Some 

smaller things like password complexity, random numbers, and 

some log file preservation methods, and so to go back and look at 

some of these standards that we looked at for -- particularly for 

environmental kinds of concerns, a set of standards called the mil 

standards which, you know, as you might imagine, it's -- what that 

really means is military standards, and to what extent we should 

update them, you know, from -- because we had backward pointers 

to previous versions. 

In December we followed up these conversations with a 

review of a voting system definition, and I'll share that with you in 
34

just a second, although it will kind of be hard to do that without the 

screen. 

And we also had a review of these hybrid solutions, so the 

hybrid solutions are, for instance, if you have an e-poll book that 

also activates a ballot, there were a lot of discussions on, well, what 

does that really mean? If we're not casting e-poll books and e-poll

books are outside the spec, then how do you test the activation of 

the ballot that's within the e-poll book or on the backend on election 

reporting? So, if you have a system that you use to capture votes, 

you know, and you also use that same system to transmit your --

you know, your votes up a line for -- so they can count it, what does 

that mean? So, there are a lot of discussions, you know, 

surrounding it. 

And then, in February we came back in and we had a very 

in-depth discussion on, you know, are we doing enough in terms of 

accessibility or are we favoring security? Because we set out at the 

onset to -- you know, to say, hey, they are both prime targets so 

that we want them to be both accessible and secure, and we don't 

want to favor one and -- you know, for the other. 

We talked more about clear boundaries between the voting 

and elections systems, so -- and then the need to air gap between 

those systems, and we also discussed the number of accessible 

machines and the ballots produced, so, you know, we had a fair 
35

number of discussions on the fact that oftentimes you'll see one 

accessible machine in a corner. And if you don't have enough 

ballots going through there, then are you really able to ensure the 

privacy of the accessible voter? 

And then throughout that entire process, you know, we --

there were ongoing discussions on the need for provisional 

standards, what do you do in the case that if you find yourself 

without a quorum of EAC Commissioners, can we still have a 

process to update those standards, and how often should the 

standards be updated? 

And we -- there was also a fair amount of discussion on the 

need for a transparent public comment process. So, the TGDC 

went through and -- for both of those, the provisional standards and

the transparent public comment, we put together some resolutions 

and forwarded them to the EAC for their consideration. 

Okay. So, today, we're here to talk about the requirements. 

And in the past, we -- as you know, there's a new structure with 

these -- the notion of the principles and guidelines, which are these 

higher set of guidelines that we all want to aspire to, and they've 

been discussed in the past. And today, these -- you know, we're 

here to discuss the requirements, which are really, you know, a 

level down, so they're deeper down. These are requirements that 

can be used by the testing laboratories to determine whether or not 
36

the manufacturers meet the requirements and also, you know, for 

the manufacturers to build to. 

So, one of the changes, you know, just to sort of orient our 

thinking was in terms of what constitutes a voting system, and we 

do have a definition. It's -- that was discussed within the TGDC as 

part of the VVSG. I really don't want to read it to you. In the past 

we sort of talked about, okay, the scope, you know, our scope here 

is from activation to accounting. That's not exactly true, but I know 

we've always talked about it in those terms. But it really also 

encompasses some of the pre-election set up, so defining elections 

and ballot styles, configuring the voting equipment, identifying and 

validating voting equipment configurations and performing the logic 

and accuracy tests. And then it starts with activating the ballots, 

and it goes through all the way to producing records that are in 

support of audits but not the actual, you know, transmission, you 

know, applying and counting. 

So, this -- I'll come back to this. It's an important distinction 

that we'll come back to. In fact, we're here now, that, you know, 

there -- again, as we all know, there's -- the voting systems --

there's a lot of confusion among what constitutes a voting system 

versus an election system and, you know, over the last 15, 20 

years we've seen the introduction of e-poll books, statewide voter 

registration databases, database systems, back office systems that 
37

election officials use for communications, and so forth, you know, 

even, you know, items like traditional and social media accounts, 

and election night reporting systems. So, there's a lot out there, so 

it's like what exactly are we talking about here? 

And, you know, I have a little graph, and this is -- it draws

this line around the voting system itself, which is really the votecapture devices that you normally see inside the polling places, as 

well as perhaps, you know, some of the election management 

systems and some of the systems that you would use -- some of 

the devices you could use for counting. Everything else is outside 

the scope, so the problem comes is what do you do with the 

boundaries, you know? 

So, the boundaries over the years, so we've started to use a 

variety of communications or networking systems. Sometimes 

they're cellular-based, so, you know, maybe it's using the same 

kind of network as your cell phone. Sometimes, you know, you're 

connecting via a cable modem or something like that. And in some 

cases you have the old dial-up modems, although oftentimes those 

dial-up modems are not the analog modems that they were quite 

some time ago. They -- they're -- when you bring up your system, 

oftentimes all of these devices will provide you with an always-on 

connection that could be -- and the problem with the always-on 
38

connection is if it's on and it's usable by you, it can also potentially 

be broken into by somebody else. 

So, one, it's something that we really sort of strive to do is to 

protect those systems that you vote on so they can go back and 

they can be inspected in case there's any problems. But we still 

want election officials to be able to use networking technologies to 

do their job, so I think Paul Lux said, hey, I've got counties who are 

really far away from each other. I can't -- and I have got a reporting 

requirement, you know, every half an hour. I can't get people to 

drive that fast. 

So, you know, when we were discussing, you know, one way 

to protect these systems is to provide an air gap between them. 

And when you do that, you know, as something we said to Paul, it's 

like, look, we want it air gapped, so we'd like for you to use 

something like sneakernet technology, so, you know, use a USB 

device, something like that, that you can take out of one machine 

and run over to another machine. We don't want you to use carnet, 

you know, technology. We don't want you to have to drive, you 

know, great distances to, you know, transmit results. So there's a 

fair amount of discussion in that vein as well. 

So, let's get down to the principles and guidelines 

themselves. So, the first four principles -- high-quality design, 

implementation, transparency, and interoperability -- are really sort 
39

of about the general operations, okay, but they're backed up by 

additional principles and guidelines for human factors, so this is for 

usability and accessibility, so they're 5 through 8. And then the final 

9 through 15 are for security. 

So, what's new? You know, I just did a very high level. We 

believe that they represent the latest in both industry and 

technology best practices, requiring significant updates and many 

aspects of voting systems. There has been a lot of work in human 

factors in the last 15 years, 15, 20 years, and these -- and much of 

that research has been incorporated directly into these 

requirements, you know, either indirectly because the research is 

there and we know it's good or because it's required by law. So,

the human factors requirements now reference Federal

accessibility standards, section 508, and the work coming out of the 

World Wide Web Consortium that -- on the web content 

accessibility guidelines. 

The voter interface requirements, they've been updated to

incorporate recent usability research and interactions that result 

from using modern devices like, you know, tablets -- we're 

beginning to see a lot of tablets -- and fully support accessibility 

through the voting process. 

The common data formats, as I mentioned before, are now 

required, and a key component of them is they provide the low-level 
40

support needed for risk-limiting audits. We are requiring defensive 

coding practices. We always have, but we're -- we updated the 

defensive coding practices. The reliability and electrical 

requirements were reviewed, updated, and streamlined. 

And another area that we thought would really sort of clean

up the VVSG to some degree is in the area of the guidance that's 

relevant to testing and certification. So, a lot of it -- a lot of this has 

to do with what a manufacturer would submit in what's called a 

technical data package or the supporting information that they 

would submit for quality assurance or configuration management. 

And the problem was that part of that was in the VVSG, and part of 

it was in the EAC's testing and certification manual. And 

sometimes they didn't line up, and it was hard to keep them -- you 

know, if you changed one and the -- you know, and you couldn't 

update the VVSG, then they were out of sync. So, we thought it 

would be better to have it all in one place. 

And this has led to a little bit of confusion because, you 

know, we have more general requirements in the VVSG with the 

specifics, it -- that will ultimately, we believe, be in the EAC's testing 

and certification manual, but the testing and certification 

manufacturers are -- and the testing labs have questions 

surrounding that and say, well, what are we really going to be 

tested to and, you know, what are the requirements here? 
41

One, some of the new security requirements call for software 

independence and support auditing methods, including risk-limiting 

audits. There's a dedicated section on ballot secrecy, the 

preventing the voter information from being carried through to the 

voting system. Two-factor authentication is now mandated for 

critical voting operations. And there's cryptographic protection and 

new system integrity requirements that ensure that the security 

protections that have been developed by the industry over the past 

decade are built into the voting system, though security is another 

area that's -- where there's -- it's been a whole active body of 

research over the last couple decades, and so it was an area that 

received a lot of updates. 

I think with that, that sort of concludes what's new. 

There's -- I do have some prepared information regarding general 

themes on the -- from the public comments if you want to go over 

them or, you know, we'd be happy just to take your questions

directly. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

This is Ray. I don't know if Brad joined back on, but I'll --

Mary, if you don't mind, I'll -- I don't know what his agenda was, but 

I think it's probably -- is somebody talking? I'm sorry. No? Okay. I 

just assumed that the boards would be more interested in asking 

their Q&A and if we have them so we can, you know, at least 
42

address the EAC board's concerns. So, I'll go ahead and open it 

up to those questions to you, Mary, if you don't mind. 

But before we do that, I do want to mention -- which I'm sure

Brad would have -- thank Bob Giles and Paul Lux for serving on 

that -- or as far as part of this VVSG process for the EAC Standards 

Board. And I know the EAC's Board of Advisors, Neal Kelley and 

Linda Lamone, also served. Thank you for that. It's a heavy lift. 

But if you're okay, Mary, then we'll open it up to questions, 

and we'll try to do this not so much as a Zoom where everybody 

one time, but we'll -- if you want to go ahead and propose any 

questions, and we'll try to control the crowd. So open up for 

questions. 

MS. BRADY:

Sounds perfect. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Mary -- or questions for Mary, go ahead, anybody. 

MR. SCHWAB:

This is Secretary Schwab out of Kansas. Just real quickly, 

Mary, you said you had the themes from the public comments. Can 

you go ahead and just shoot -- can the staff in the EAC just shoot 

that --

MS. BRADY:

Oh, absolutely. 
43

MR. SCHWAB:

-- to our email just so we can peruse it and I can share with 

our elections division? 

MS. BRADY:

Well, there is in my slides -- my slides -- we were trying to 

send them over to them. I suspect we can get them to you. 

MR. SCHWAB:

Yeah, if you can just give it to staff. And, staff, if you could 

just forward that on to the entire committee, that would be helpful, 

please. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Any other questions also, just opening that up? But I did 

want to ask the staff, EAC, that I assume that presentations, 

presented or not due to technical difficulties, will still be provided to 

all of us so we can -- we'll know that we'll have that. Is that correct, 

EAC staff? 

MR. RAFFENSPERGER:

Yes, that's correct. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Okay. Thank you. So other questions? 

MR. RAFFENSPERGER:

Brad Raffensperger, Georgia.

MR. VALENZUELA:
44

Bob, go ahead.

MR. GILES:

This is Bob Giles. So I had a couple questions more for the 

Commissioners. Mary raised the -- during her presentation the 

three resolutions that were voted on back in September of 2019, 

September 19th. Could you comment so just very quickly the -- a 

quick overview of the three. One was that they adopt -- the 

Commissioners adopt the yearly review of the VVSG so they don't 

fall far behind. The second resolution was that the EAC 

Commissioners present -- permit EAC professional staff, in 

consultation with NIST, to make minor technical changes to the 

requirements in a timely manner. And this should include the 

development of any appeals process. And the third resolution was 

basically what we've been asking for quite a while is did the 

Commissioners ever come up with a way to -- provisional 

requirements that should there not be a quorum we could move 

forward with provisional requirements, and then when the TGDC 

got back together, they could give a full approval of those? 

And then just the other thing that came up at that meeting, 

for years we've been asking for the legal opinion on what -- whether 

the requirements have to be voted. That's -- was the whole point of 

separating them. I know at that meeting Commissioner Hovland 
45

gave an overview but did -- was or ever a written opinion that could 

be shared with the Standards Board or the TGDC? Thanks.

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Well, as the DFO, I guess I'll start. This meeting really is 

about the requirements, Bob. I mean, I understand that there was 

a number of resolutions on these three areas. I do think that we do 

get a yearly review of the VVSG, both inside the EAC and obviously 

through our boards, including the Standards Board. 

The second issue you brought up was the professional staff 

and the creation of a possible appeal process. There have been 

discussions amongst the Commissioners. We haven't focused a 

hearing on that separate issue that's outside the scope of the 

VVSG. I know there's been some disagreements about whether or 

not Commissioners can delegate authority on the VVSG or related 

topics to staff, and so that's still an issue of consideration. 

The last issue you brought up was the provisional 

requirements. Again, that goes into, from my perspective, an issue 

that's not really, you know, inside the scope of the requirements of 

this meeting, and so I know it's an issue that if, for example, there 

was a lack of a quorum, what would the EAC do in the event of the 

updated requirements again? I think that is a legal and a policy 

issue, but that's really outside the scope of our requirements here 

today. Are we satisfied as a Standards Board with the 
46

requirements that we have to be attached to the guidelines and as 

we set up our test assertions and eventual -- with the 

manufacturers eventually designing and building equipment to 

those requirements. 

Many of those issues I consider a process with a legal and 

policy aspect to them. I think Mary said it correctly that it's outside 

the scope of the VVSG. But I understand that these are issues that 

the community is concerned about. But I hope I answered the 

question from this Commissioner's perspective that we can address 

those issues, but it's sort of -- we're trying to do the nuts and bolts 

today on, are we satisfied from a policy perspective on certain 

requirements that the manufacturers will test their equipment to. 

MR. GILES:

And then just any update on the legal opinion concerning 

separation of the two that we're taking that path? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Well, from my memory, I do know that the General Counsel 

at the time, Cliff, provided some legal analysis to the TGDC on this

issue, and obviously, we now have a new General Counsel. I 

would rather defer to him on that issue. It is one aspect of the 

issue. I think that from my perspective we -- in the development of 

standards and requirements, these are issues of the TGDC, the 

Standards Board, and the Board of Advisors to develop those and 
47

provide input to the EAC for the eventual development of those 

standards and requirements for a new VVSG 2.0. That's sort of my 

opinion on the issue. I do know there's been some legal analysis. 

But obviously, we have a new counsel on board, and we would like 

to talk to him about that issue. I don't think he's reached any 

conclusions. 

But we are basically in the final four to six months of this 

process bringing this in for landing on 2.0. Obviously, I'm hoping to 

listen, as a Commissioner, to both legal and policy discussions, but 

from my perspective the primary method that Congress established 

for the establishment of requirements is with the EAC and its 

advisory boards and not professional staff necessarily. Obviously, 

we take their advice, you know, very importantly. We take that --

we have great relationships with our professional staff, but that's 

more of a legal and policy issue. That -- I don't want that to distract 

us from getting to the finish line on these requirements. 

And so, what I'd like to do is just -- if we need to have some 

separate discussions with that on where we are with the 

resolutions, what is some of the thinking in the EAC. I know 

everyone's busy. I'd like to focus on some of the requirements and 

just sort of what is the general thought on whether or not the 

product that the TGDC and the Board of Advisors has looked at, 

whether or not the Standards Board is satisfied with that as we 
48

enter this final phase post-comment period for development of 

those requirements. 

MR. GILES:

So just -- well, I mean, we've been going around and around 

on the legal opinion. If you're saying that the new legal counsel will 

review it and hopefully will share that with us, we -- all we ever got 

was a summary of it at the last meeting, and so -- but to the other 

three resolutions, I respectfully disagree that I believe they are part 

of today's conversation because they have to do with the 

requirements. And if we're going to pass a resolution today the 

same way we did at the TGDC, I think those should be part of a 

discussion where what will happen to these requirements once they 

get passed and put out there and you don't have a quorum or, you 

know, that's an ongoing concern for all of us. 

So I -- you know, I believe that's a discussion we should 

have. I know a resolution has been drafted, but we may want to 

consider -- and I would bring it up -- the three resolutions adopted 

by the TGDC should be adopted by -- I would ask that they be 

adopted by the Standards Board as well, or have them be included 

in the resolution.

MR. LUX:

I would have to -- I -- 

MS. MYERS:
49

And this is Jessica Myers. I just --

MR. LUX:

Go ahead, Jessica. 

MS. MYERS:

I just want to echo what Bob is saying. As a now State

election person and previously State election person, but also 

former EAC staffer that worked at -- in testing and certification and 

had to try to make requirements fit when we didn't have 

Commissioners, I echo a lot of Bob's concerns. And I understand 

and very much want us to get this 2.0 out and agree with you, 

Commissioner, about that's the primary focus of today. But I also 

echo Bob's concerns and concerns of others on this board and 

some of the other advisory boards that it's a very real and serious 

concern, and it caused significant problems and damaged -- and 

damage throughout not just with relationships at the EAC but also 

within States and their ability to implement and purchase and 

advance. So, I just wanted to make sure I got to say that. 

Thank you for bring it up, Bob, and thank you for your 

response, Commissioner Palmer. 

MR. LUX:

And I would just echo Bob's comments. This is Paul Lux. 

And the reason is, you know, that's part of the reason why we're 

where we are right now with 2.0 is because none of these things 
50

were in place and this has been a concern. The TGDC -- I certainly 

have not served on the TGDC as long as Bob has, but this has 

been a concern of the TGDC for as long as I've been on it, and we 

still don't have a resolution to it. And I think it's absolutely very 

appropriate that the Standards Board have an opportunity to hear 

those concerns and if, as Bob suggested, forward those resolutions 

again as the Standards Board. 

MR. NEWBY:

So, this is Brian Newby, and speaking today really from the 

State of North Dakota and North Dakota's views, I would clarify a 

little bit about what Bob Giles said in that I wouldn't say this is a 

concern for all of us. It's a concern for many. I'm not concerned 

personally, and I don't think our State is about the quorum issue. 

But I do have to say that if we're talking about the nuts and 

bolts today of VVSG 2.0, nuts and bolts today mean that if there are 

changes to the requirements, they have to go through the same 

process that we're going through today. They have to go to the 

boards, they have to have a public comment period. And so I do 

think it's germane to the discussion today. 

If instead what is being said is that there will be a separate 

notice, hearing, public comment period on the way that 

requirements will be modified, much to the other discussion that's 

already happening, then I think then that's fine to not have it today, 
51

but I don't know how you can approve VVSG 2.0 without also 

making a comment related to the way that ongoing changes will be 

administered. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

I see that Brad is back, and Brad, I don't know if you -- I took 

the privilege to secede you in your absence, so -- but I don't know if 

you've been -- have you been hearing the past -- where we're at or 

what our next move if you will -- because I know it's a vote to 

recommend or not recommend the VVSG 2.0, but are we still in 

discussion and wanting to know --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Ray, first of all, thank you very much for actually accepting 

your responsibility to step forward as Vice Chairman. I apologize. I 

had a technical difficulty here on my end where we had some 

overheating that kicked me out of the meeting, and so it took some 

extra effort to get me back in. So, I do appreciate your presiding 

over Mary Brady's presentation and the discussion that we've had 

so far. 

Commissioner Palmer, you sent a text about a request for 30 

seconds of personal privilege, and I don't know whether you were 

able to have that yet or not? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:
52

No, I -- actually, I should have brought it up when I was 

talking to Bob about his question. I had neglected in my comments 

to give the best wishes from -- to the Standards Board from 

Commissioner McCormick, the former DFO of Standards. She had 

a medical procedure and is not going to be on the call today, but 

she's in our prayers. And I just wish to convey that as well to the 

members. 

And with that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman. That's all 

I wanted to say. Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. And I'm sure all of us join in wishing her 

the very best and trusting that she will be back at the helm shortly. 

At this point in the agenda we are having an ongoing 

discussion regarding comments or questions with regard to Mary 

Brady's presentation. Are there further comments or questions in 

that regard? 

MR. RAFFENSPERGER:

Brad Raffensperger, Georgia. I had a question. We have a 

new system in Georgia, and it is obviously VVSG 1.0. And what we 

obviously want to be is grandfathered since it's brand new. We just 

want to make sure as we forward to 2.0 that we recognize that most 

States, the fielded systems aren't going to meet the new standards. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
53

Okay. Thank you. Are there further comments or 

questions? 

MR. WOOD:

Question, please. Question, please.

MR. VALENZUELA:

I hear somebody asking to request a question. 

MS. BRADY:

Yeah.

MR. WOOD:

Can you hear me? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. Please proceed. 

MR. WOOD:

Brian Wood, West Virginia. Mary, I was wondering, in the 

last public hearing, the third hearing, the vendors were asked to 

come on and speak, and one of the questions -- I believe all of 

them stated that none of their systems now would meet the 2.0 

standards. And the question was asked is there any concerns they 

have with the 2.0 standards. And all -- if not all, most had some 

concerns. Those concerns were supposed to be put in writing and 

submitted to you all, but from a Standards Board member, I did not 

get to hear what those concerns were and wondering if you had 

any insight into that and can those be resolved? 
54

MS. BRADY:

So, yeah, thanks for the question. I -- as Mona pointed out, 

there is a group of folks that are meeting weekly, so this is staff 

from the EAC, from NIST, from the manufacturers, from the voting 

system test laboratories, and a couple of other folks who are 

technical folks as well. And what we're trying to do in those 

meetings, what we've done in those meetings is go back and we 

started by asking the manufacturers to provide additional detail 

because we'd like to really sort of zero in on what their concerns 

are and see if there's a real technical concern there and perhaps 

it's something that can be addressed or, you know, or what the 

actual concern is. So, we're really trying to drill in. 

And so what we've been doing here recently is we went 

through and -- as you might imagine, if you ask an open-ended 

question, you really don't get much of an answer, so it's -- so what 

we did is we said, hey, look, you all submitted your comments. We 

went through, grabbed all of the manufacturer comments, and 

evaluated them. We analyzed them, and we're stepping through 

them, you know, one by one with the manufacturers to try to see if 

there's any resolution. 

Some of the things that have come up already -- and I'm 

sure my slides are over there now, and some of this is in the slides

-- is there's a real concern -- and I sort of alluded to this -- that we --
55

when we took and moved the documentation for the technical data 

package and for the quality assurance and configuration 

management, these are all things that are all artifacts that the 

manufacturers have to submit for testing and certification. So 

they -- there's a lot of documentation in there, and there are a lot of 

questions about, okay, since you took this and you moved it to the 

EAC's testing and certification manual -- and it's not there yet, so 

we don't know exactly what it is we have to do -- they're concerned 

about how they're going to be tested and, you know, how deep they 

have to go for some of these things. 

So, I think that's something that's pretty easily worked out. 

We just have to figure out where it's going to be, how -- you know, 

what they -- what they're concerned about, they know where to look 

for it, they know what it is they have to do to start the testing and 

certification process, and what they have to submit, so that's easy. 

Something that's a little more meaty is there's this -- the use 

of COTS, commercial off-the-shelf hardware, that's allowable in the 

VVSG, but there's a whole series of questions that come up that 

surround it. So, for instance -- let me just see if I can get to that 

slide. 

MR. WOOD:

If we were to pass this --

MS. BRADY:
56

Take me to -- yeah, so, for instance, there's questions about 

like the past voting systems had pretty stringent electrical 

requirements and environmental requirements, and for COTS, 

they're like, well, these COTS systems aren't going to meet that 

because, you know, those requirements come out of military 

standards, so you're looking for hardware that's going to be really, 

you know, pretty robust. And the -- you know, your laptops are not 

nearly as robust. Your tablets are not nearly as robust, you know, if 

you just buy a commercial off-the-shelf system. 

The same problem with the lifespan of systems, so normally 

you're shooting for 10 years or more. You know, in some of these 

tablets we go through them in two to three years. So that's, I think,

a legitimate concern that it's like, okay, you know, we need to talk 

about that and figure out how we might be able to address it. 

So, we are working through them, you know, so there's one 

that's sort of on the edge, okay, it's documentation. What do we 

have to provide? And it's just a matter of listing it so they know and 

they get a warm fuzzy feeling that, you know, we haven't upped the 

ante to such a degree that they can't meet it and that these are 

things that they can do. 

And then, you know, here's another one on the other side, 

COTS, where, okay, we really need to have an in-depth discussion 

about what's reasonable to do here, and perhaps military standard 
57

that we're referencing is too stringent for these types of systems 

and there has to be recognition that, you know, tablets -- you're 

going to have to -- if you're working with tablet technology, you may 

have to replace it more often. Does that answer your question? 

MR. WOOD:

Somewhat. If we pass 2.0 and we don't address these 

concerns, are we going to be right back in the same spot we are 

now in that we have guidelines and specs that can't be met and 

we're boxed in like we're in a --

MS. BRADY:

Well, I mean, that's part of -- I think that's part of what, you 

know, Bob was alluding to and, you know, normally in -- normally 

when you put together standards and, you know, if you go to a 

standards-setting organization, standards aren't a one-and-done 

kind of thing because technology evolves and you have to continue 

to, you know, update your requirements to evolve with technology. 

So, there are -- you know, in order to do that, if you're going to do 

that in a standard, you have to have a testing and certification 

program, in my opinion, that can also operate in that fashion. 

And I think that's -- the testing and certification is separate 

but pretty much related to the requirements, right? So I think they 

are discussions that we have to have, and I believe that will come 

up with the manufacturers is how do you have an agile testing and 
58

certification process that will allow for, you know, for continual 

updating to the degree that's -- I mean, you can't update everything 

all the time. That's not fair to the manufacturers, right? But where 

you're catching the big things that you have to catch. 

You know, it's something that came up with TGDC 

discussions is what if you find out that there's a security problem? 

You want to patch that as fast as you possibly can, right? So you 

have to have an agile process that will allow for that and will allow 

for that system to be certified and -- very quickly. 

Now, the EAC, I think some of the past -- and I don't want to 

speak for you all, but -- for the testing and cert folks, but I know 

some of the -- you know, some of the updates where they were just 

smaller updates, they've been able to get them through very 

quickly, you know, so that'll be part of the discussion as well. 

MR. WOOD:

I'd like to echo Bob's concerns as well, as well as Brad's 

concerns with making sure that the old systems are grandfathered 

in. 

Congratulations on your retirement I believe you said. 

MS. BRADY:

Yeah, thank you. Yes. 

MR. WOOD:

Thank you for the time. I appreciate it. 
59

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, Brian. 

Are there further questions or comments? 

MR. KELLNER:

I had a comment if you'll recognize me, Mr. Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Kellner. 

MR. KELLNER:

So, this is Doug Kellner. I'm Co-Chair of the New York State 

Board of Elections, and I'm very troubled about these comments 

with respect to grandfathering. They remind me of the old Henny 

Youngman joke where the doctor says, well, if you can't afford the 

operation, I'll touchup the x-rays. 

And the point here is that if we're using substandard 

equipment, we should acknowledge that. These are only 

guidelines, and to the extent that election administrators are not 

able to upgrade their equipment to meet the standards, we should 

at least acknowledge that we're using substandard equipment. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Are there further questions or comments? 

MR. LUX:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. What is the effective date? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
60

Paul, I'm sorry, you're referring to the effective date of which 

item in particular? 

MR. LUX:

Of 2.0, of the entire -- if we voted today, what's the effective 

date of the entire VVSG 2.0? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, I'll defer to EAC staff, particularly legal staff, but of 

course the standards are adopted by the four members of the 

Election Assistance Commission. I don't know whether they can 

specify an effective date other than the date of their vote, so, again, 

I'll defer to EAC staff for an answer on that point. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

So, Brad, this is Don Palmer, and I'm welcome to be 

corrected if I'm wrong. I mean, once you establish the VVSG 2.0 

guidelines and requirements, there has to be test assertions on 

those requirements. Then, the -- excuse me. Manufacturers will 

design and they will build voting systems to those standards, so I 

guess you could say they're -- they come into effect when they're 

adopted, but it will be a number -- probably at least a year, probably 

more, before the first manufacturer will actually have a machine 

that's built to those standards. 

But our goal, at the EAC, is to make sure that it -- our 

program is ready for it as soon as possible thereafter of the 
61

adoption with our test assertions, with our accredited labs 

understanding and having that relationship with the manufacturers 

for testing to the new requirements. And I'm happy to have staff 

come in and correct me if I misstated anything. 

MR. RAYBURN:

This is Kevin Rayburn. You're spot on, and the particular 

section of HAVA is section 222, paragraph D, that talks about final 

adoption. So, if that's what you mean by effective date, then it's 

spelled out in HAVA with the vote of three -- at least three 

Commissioners. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, sir. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

One additional issue. Again, I'm fine to be corrected. 

Secretary Raffensperger's question regarding grandfathering, my 

understanding is that is separate and apart from VVSG. It may be 

something that goes into the program manual as a policy. That 

would be something that I believe the Commission as a whole 

would adopt, what effect -- what the grandfathering is and what are 
62

the effective VVSGs for testing. And again, that's my 

understanding, and I'm -- no one piped up, so I thought I'd try to 

answer that as best I could. But if there's a more specific answer to 

that, staff is more than willing to pipe in. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, Commissioner. 

MR. LUX:

And this is Paul Lux. I would just like to add, Mr. Chairman, 

to the question of grandfathering, it's not a matter of are we using a 

substandard system. It's a matter of we're using systems that were 

certified to a previous version of the VVSG being substandard. It

may not be current standards, but it wasn't substandard when it 

was certified to the most recent version of the VVSG. 

MR. RAYBURN:

This is Kevin Rayburn. And to go with that, if and when 

VVSG 2.0 is adopted, that doesn't result in decertification of old 

systems, so it -- you know, adoption of 2.0 would not have an 

impact on a decertification of a prior system certified under a prior 

standard, just like 1.1 didn't have an impact on 1.0. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Further comments or questions? 

MR. NEWBY:
63

Mr. Chair, I just have a question if -- as a point of order. If --

is this portion questions of the presentation or also discussion 

about the overall VVSG 2.0? In other words, when there would be 

a call to vote, will there be discussion after that before the vote, or 

is this intended to be both those items here? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Mr. Newby, this is the questions and comments in response 

to Ms. Brady's presentation. There is not currently a motion 

pending before the board. Since you've raised it, I'll take the 

opportunity to say that a resolution regarding this matter has been 

drafted and was circulated very recently to the entire membership 

by EAC staff. And so, when the comments or questions arising 

from Ms. Brady's presentation are concluded, the next item on the 

agenda is consideration of the resolution that you were provided on 

this topic. And there will be an opportunity for further comments 

and questions on this subject as part of the discussion of that 

resolution. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Mr. Chairman, I want to add that the EAC staff associate 

counsel Amanda Joiner had sent out Ms. Brady's presentation to 

the full Standards Board, so everyone should have that in their 

email. 

MS. CEGAVSKE:
64

I just got it in mine. This is Barbara Cegavske from Nevada, 

so I do have it. Thank you, Mary. 

MS. BRADY:

You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, thank you very much. 

Are there further comments or questions with regard to the 

presentation?

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman, Kyle Ardoin from Louisiana. I'm wondering,

from Mary, if all of the legal or non-technical issues have been 

addressed by the manufacturers. 

MS. BRADY:

I'm not sure what you mean by legal or non-technical issues. 

MR. ARDOIN:

It's my understanding that there's been issues brought up by 

the manufacturers that address some legal issues that they believe 

that this VVSG 2.0 will address and technical issues that they're 

concerned about and not all of them -- not all of these questions 

have been answered or have been vetted in detail. 

MS. BRADY:

Okay. So, we are working through -- we have weekly 

meetings with the manufacturers, and we are working through any 
65

issues they may have. I have not heard anything regarding legal 

issues just yet, although there is some discussion on a patent 

policy and whether or not there -- any of the manufacturers might 

hold patents to -- but if there's anything within the VVSG that would 

preclude them from building it, you know, due to, you know, another 

manufacturer holding a patent that -- so I heard about that, but it 

hasn't been brought up in any detail inside these meetings just yet, 

but I expect we'll get to it. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

This is Mona, and I second what Mary just said. And we're 

working methodically through the requirements, so we just probably 

haven't gotten there yet, but nothing legal has come up to date. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Well, if it hasn't been worked through, then why are we 

entertaining a resolution until all those issues are addressed 

sufficiently? 

MS. BRADY:

Well, Don, maybe that's a question for you. I mean, the --

my only answer to that is this is the HAVA process. The HAVA 

process is to go through the TGDC and then after it's adopted by 

the TGDC, to send it up to the Standards Board and the Board of 

Advisors for comment. So I think at this point the question is, you 

know --
66

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

This is --

MS. BRADY:

-- that's -- I -- that's the process we're working through, and 

eventually that will all go to the Commissioners with -- you know, for 

the final decision. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

Yeah, I can --

MS. BRADY:

Go ahead, Ben. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

-- comment on that. So, we had the public comment period, 

the 90 days that ran. You know, we got feedback from the 

manufacturer hearing. We're working through those. You know, 

and again, that will all be eventually -- as you've heard, it's going to 

be worked through by staff. That will be presented to us eventually. 

What we're looking for here is feedback from the Standards Board

members on any issues that you see with these technical 

requirements. 

Again, the way that HAVA states here, you know, we are --

the TGDC forwards this to the Executive Director. It gets forwarded 

to the other boards. We are then prohibited from voting on it for 90 

days. So more than any specific action, it is that we are prohibited 
67

from voting on the VVSG for 90 days until after you've had a 

chance to see it. The 90-day comment period ran, but we 

obviously value Standards Board feedback, and that's what we're 

seeking to get here. And we're also continuing to work through a 

lot of these processes on parallel tracks because we are aware of 

the time concerns about how long this process has taken and our 

dedication to trying to get it done. 

So certainly appreciate that feedback, but again, I think what

-- you know, again, we're working through those issues, and what I 

think we want to get a sense of today is if the Standards Board

feels there are specific issues that do still need to be addressed or 

should be considered and/or if you are generally comfortable with 

the direction that the requirements are in. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Further questions and comments? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, Mary, thank you very much for your 

presentation. I appreciate your willingness --

MS. BRADY:

You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
68

-- to discuss this and address the questions raised by 

members. 

The next item on the agenda concerns consideration of a 

resolution regarding these matters, and I don't know if EAC staff 

can, again, publish the first of, I believe, two pages of the resolution 

that was circulated very recently, within the last day or so, to 

members of the board. Staff, can you do that? 

MR. RAYBURN:

If Steve's not able to get that up, I can try to share screen 

and put it up. One second. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

One moment. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Very good. Let me ask. Have the members had an 

opportunity to read through this resolution? 

[Chorus of yeses]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. Okay. I'm not hearing any noes. Then for purposes of 

discussion, is there a motion to adopt resolution 2020-1, as 

submitted? I will so move. Is there a second? 

MR. PETTIT:
69

Mr. Chair, I -- if you don't want to do that, I would be happy 

to do it. This is Jerry Pettit from Washington. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. I would appreciate that. Is there a second? 

MR. ROCK:

Rob Rock from Rhode Island. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. A motion has been made and seconded. We 

will proceed to discussion on the resolution itself. Whoever would 

like to recognize, again, please identify yourself. And our 

discussion will commence. 

MR. GILES:

Hi, Brad. It's Bob Giles. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hi, Bob. 

MR. GILES:

So, the three resolutions I mentioned earlier, would we --

and you're the procedures expert. Would those be something we 

take separately or try to include in this resolution? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, let me ask if the staff can scroll down to the bottom of 

the resolution. You'll see in italics "or with additional 

recommendations outlined below." We had a vote earlier in this 
70

meeting to approve the agenda with this resolution on it, and so, 

procedurally, the proper approach would be to offer the resolutions 

you referred to in some form as an amendment to the resolution 

that's pending before the body. 

MR. GILES:

So then if I offer the three resolutions -- and I can bring them 

up on screen if need be -- to amend this resolution -- and I guess 

that's the question. Do you want to take those separately, as 

separate resolutions, or included in this --

CHAIRMAN KING:

You may offer the amendments in any form you wish. You 

can offer them as a single amendment or as three separate 

amendments. But, of course, we will only consider one amendment 

at a time. 

MR. GILES:

So then, since we get three separate resolutions at the 

TGDC, then we could take those as three separate amendments 

and we can do one at a time if that's --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, that is correct. 

MR. GILES:

Okay. Would you want me to share my screen so everyone 

can see those? 
71

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, let's decide what you would like to offer and the order 

you'd like to offer them in if they're separate. But then, sure, if -- I 

assume we can get them to be shared on the screens. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, who's speaking? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin. I have real 

concerns --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, Secretary. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Thank you. I have real concerns about where we're headed 

at this moment in time. I do not know anything or have any 

information about the three resolutions Mr. Giles is proposing to 

amend to this resolution. I already have concerns about this 

resolution for previous comments that I made. And so, if we're 

going to head in this direction, then I'd like to make a substitute 

motion to table the entire subject matter until another meeting when 

we can be fully updated on all the information we're going to be 

considering. 
72

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you, Secretary. There is a motion to table the 

resolution and postpone consideration until the next scheduled 

meeting of the Standards Board. Have I stated your motion 

properly, Mr. Secretary? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. As I recall, motions to table are not 

subject to debate, and so I will simply ask for ayes and nays. 

Those in favor of the motion to table, please signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Those opposed to the motion to table, signify by saying nay. 

[Chorus of nays]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Was there a question addressed to the Chair? 

MR. MERRILL:

What's the ruling of the Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

In the opinion of the Chair, the nays prevail. 

MR. MERRILL:
73

Okay. I call -- this is John Merrill from Alabama. I call 

division. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Which is granted. Staff, if we can open up procedures for 

members to indicate their preference. 

MR. SHEW:

Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, certainly. 

MR. SHEW:

When is the next meeting of the board that we would be 

tabling to? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

We do not know other than a yearly meeting is required 

under the statute. 

MR. SHEW:

Okay. 

MR. ARDOIN:

A point of information, Mr. Chairman. Do you have the 

authority to call a future meeting, or does it take a vote of the 

membership to call for a future meeting? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
74

Meetings are called essentially through the Election 

Assistance Commission since their approval is required to enter 

into contracts with hotels and other facilities so that the meeting can 

be facilitated. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Or we could have another Zoom meeting. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Presumably, we could have another Zoom meeting. 

MR. DEARING:

Point of information, Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please proceed. 

MR. DEARING:

This is Jared Dearing, Kentucky. So I understand the 

concerns the Secretary has, and they're valid, but I guess my 

concern is are we talking about pushing this further down the road 

for a full another year, and if that's the case, that does give me 

some pause and concern that this should move forward. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. 

MR. RAYBURN:
75

Mr. Chairman, so my understanding is we're going to take 

essentially a roll call vote, and you're -- are you asking if we can do 

that through a poll or if we need to verbally go down the list? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. A division has been requested and granted, and so we 

will -- I would take a poll rather than a roll call vote if we can do that. 

If we cannot, then we'll have to take a roll call vote. 

MR. RAYBURN:

It might take --

MR. GOUGH:

Mr. Chairman? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. WATSON:

Mike Watson from Mississippi here. I'm on the phone, so I 

can't vote at a poll. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That's -- we would accommodate votes that come in by 

phone. 

MR. GOUGH:

Excuse me, Chairman --

CHAIRMAN KING:

At the end of the -- one moment. At the -- during the poll

and after, I will make a point to ask individuals who are on by phone 
76

to indicate their vote on the motion so they will be included in the 

final tally. 

MR. WATSON:

Thank you, sir. I'm a "no" if you want to go ahead and write 

that down. 

MR. PETTIT:

Mr. Chair, Jerry Pettit from Washington. 

MR. GILES:

So, Brad, this is Bob Giles. I guess my concern on taking a 

vote without a date certain for the next meeting, to Jared's point, of 

Kentucky, that is concerning. I -- you know, if it's a 30-day delay to 

get the --

MR. SCHWAB:

Okay. Point of order. I thought this was not debatable. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

This -- this is not -- thank you. This is not subject to debate. 

MR. PETTIT:

Mr. Chair, Jerry Pettit from Washington. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, Mr. Pettit. 

MR. PETTIT:

My concern with having specific people have -- being called 

out that are on the phone having to address specifically who they --
77

who they are to make a voice vote, then I would prefer a roll call 

vote to ensure that everyone of membership is on record as far as 

their voting preference. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I appreciate your concern and understand it, but at this point 

staff indicates, if I understand correctly, that a poll can be 

conducted, and I've indicated that telephone votes will be accepted. 

MR. PETTIT:

Mr. Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, sir. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

Can I make a point of clarification just to -- so it's my 

understanding that right now is a potential roll call vote on a motion 

to table this recommended or this drafted petition -- or to send to 

the EAC. And I would just flag for people that if that is the case, as 

I mentioned, HAVA says we are not allowed to vote for 90 days. It 

does not say we have to have your recommendations, so you will 

be voting to put us in a position to either stall the EAC -- stall the

VVSG 2.0 in order --

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman, is this debating? 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:
78

I'm just trying to educate people of the scenario, or to move 

forward without --

MR. ARDOIN:

I think you're actually debating the motion whether or not to 

table. I think that any -- we can call a meeting anytime I want, and 

the Chairman has that authority. Certainly --

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

Absolutely. 

MR. ARDOIN:

-- no one is -- no one's saying we should put it off for a year. 

No one's suggested that at all. I simply want to clarify whatever Mr. 

Giles is pursuing with these other resolutions more information in 

order to get that and be able to make an educated vote on this 

issue. I'll meet in two more weeks. I don't care. 

COMMISSIONER HOVLAND:

Absolutely. This is -- this --

CHAIRMAN KING:

I think if I can ask for order for a moment and then, Secretary 

Merrill, I'll be happy to recognize you. Yes, we are getting into 

debate, and we do need to proceed in whatever fashion with a vote 

on the motion to table. 

But, Mr. Secretary, please proceed. 

MR. MERRILL:
79

Listen, I just -- I feel like we've talked about this long enough, 

so whatever course of action you want to take, Mr. Chairman, as far 

as recognizing how the members feel I think is appropriate, but we 

need to do so right now because we already took a 30-minute 

break that we didn't schedule to take earlier, and some of us have 

other things to do this afternoon after our allotted time was given to 

the meeting. So, let's go ahead and vote. You do that the way you 

think is best, but let's vote. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. The Chair has ruled for a poll vote to be taken 

with telephone votes to be eligible. EAC staff, can you please 

proceed to enable that? 

MR. RAYBURN:

So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Steve, are you available to 

speak, and have you by now created the poll, or would you like 

instructions on how to word the poll?

MR. TROUT:

Yeah, the wording of the poll would be helpful, and then I 

can throw it up on the screen. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Mr. Chair, can you provide how you want the poll worded, 

and then I presume a yes and no response?

CHAIRMAN KING:
80

It's very simple. Shall resolution 2020-1 be tabled until the 

next regularly called meeting of the Standards Board? 

MR. MERRILL:

Mr. Chairman, would you mind changing that to say regular 

or special called meeting? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I am open to that amendment, yes. 

MR. MERRILL:

Okay. Thank you. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Steve, and it should say the next regular or special-called 

meeting of the board. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Of the Standards Board, yes. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Oh, I remind folks, only voting members should be voting on 

this motion. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Thank you, Steve. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, members. Please proceed to vote as promptly 

as possible. 

MR. STEVENS:
81

Mr. Chairman, is there an opportunity to vote by proxy for 

this? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. You and I both hold proxies for other members. 

MR. STEVENS:

How would we execute that? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

We can do that by phone. Do you have, Anthony, the 

number of EAC staff to reach to convey your vote for your proxy? 

MR. STEVENS:

Not right here. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Steve, can you provide that information, please? 

MR. TROUT:

Would you like me to display the results on screen? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please, when they're finished, when I close voting. My 

vote for my proxy is being called in. 

MR. RAYBURN:

And, Mr. Chair, this is Kevin Rayburn, General Counsel. 

Since this is not a secret vote, I think, just as you will go through the 

people on cell phones, I think proxies can be verbalized as well if 

that's more efficient. 
82

CHAIRMAN KING:

Very good. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Just to clarify --

CHAIRMAN KING:

I'm going to continue -- can I ask anyone who is on by 

telephone to indicate their vote on the motion? 

MR. WATSON:

This is Secretary Michael Watson from Mississippi. I'd like to 

table. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That would be an aye? 

MR. WATSON:

Aye. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I have a text from Jay Ashcroft, who says he did not receive 

a popup and votes aye. I'm sorry. I may have missed a message, 

a text message there that was just sent, as long as EAC staff could 

see the screen. We have a note to those without a popup, you 

might try clicking the polls icon at the bottom of your screen. Okay. 

I'll leave the polls open for another minute. 

MR. VALENZUELA:
83

Mr. Chair, this is Ray. I just want to reemphasize that the 

proxies, I know they know who they are, but just for the point of 

record, is Robert Dezmelyk is a proxy for Anthony Stevens, so if 

they want to initiate their vote. Carol Thompson for proxies to Gail 

Fenumiai and Julie Flynn, proxies to you, Mr. Chair, which you've 

already cast, but just to clarify. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, Ray. 

MR. STEVENS:

Mr. Chair, this is Anthony Stevens. On behalf of Robert 

Dezmelyk, I'd like to vote nay. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. I received -- can staff see the messages that 

others are sending in that are appearing on my screen that indicate 

their vote? 

MS. MUTHIG:

If the message is to everyone, then yes, we will be able to 

see those messages. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. So, for example, Gail votes nay. 

MS. MUTHIG:

Yes, we can see that. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
84

Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure nothing was lost 

that only I was seeing. 

MS. MUTHIG:

Yep. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. The polls will close in a matter of seconds.

MS. MERRILL:

This is Denise Merrill from Connecticut. Can you hear me? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, thank you. 

MS. MERRILL:

I'll vote nay. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Can staff please record that vote? And the polls 

are now closed. When staff has an opportunity, can you provide a 

report regarding the vote? The roll call shows by percentages 70 

percent have voted nay, 30 percent have voted aye. The motion to 

table has been defeated. 

Are there further motions concerning resolutions 2020-1? 

Well, we're -- I should say we're returning to our original motion to 

adopt as submitted. Are there further amendments to that 

resolution?

[No response]
85

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, is there further comment or debate regarding 

the resolution itself, resolution 2020-1, as submitted? 

MR. MERRILL:

I call the question. 

MR. NEWBY:

Mr. Chair, I have a comment. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Mr. Newby is recognized. The question will be called in as 

expeditious a manner as possible. 

MR. NEWBY:

And it's just to stress I think the -- not to do anything other 

than just go on the record with our view in North Dakota. We can't 

support the resolution as it stands -- with the VVSG 2.0 as it stands 

related to the inclusion of wireless requirements and also with the --

I guess the uncertainty for sure that the Commissioners will not be 

following the process outlined in HAVA to approve any further and

future changes in the VVSG 2.0. So not really bringing that up for 

debate, just wanted to clarify what my vote would be. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Mr. Kellner has requested recognition. 

MR. KELLNER:
86

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I voted against supporting the 

guidelines at last year's meeting, but I want to endorse the revisions 

that have been made. And I believe that they strongly improve the 

role of ensuring integrity and verifiability in the election process. I 

still have some reservations, which I wrote in written comments to 

the EAC, and to save time I won't go through them now, but given 

the very substantial improvements that have been made, I do 

support the resolution. 

And my greatest and most significant reservation is the 

continued use in some jurisdictions of online return of voted ballots, 

which I believe should be considered to be covered by the Help 

America Vote Act as part of the voting system, and yet there is no 

process for certifying that equipment. But, nevertheless, I believe 

that it is better for the EAC to adopt these guidelines now, so I 

support them and urge a "yes" vote on the resolution. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Are there further comments? Are there further 

comments? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, we will call the question. This matter requires 

a roll call vote of the membership. I would ask, as a courtesy to 
87

Secretary Merrill, that he be called first in this. So, if EAC staff 

could please proceed to work with Steve Trout, our Secretary. 

MR. TROUT:

Well, great. Secretary Merrill? 

MR. MERRILL:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Anthony Albence? 

MR. ALBENCE:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Marci Andino? 

MS. ANDINO:

I vote no. 

MR. TROUT:

Secretary Ardoin? 

MR. ARDOIN:

I vote no. 

MR. TROUT:

Secretary Ashcroft? I'll continue to watch the chat. Thank 

you, Secretary Ashcroft, got it. 

Kenny Barger? 

MR. BARGER:
88

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Lisbeth Becker? 

MS. BECKER:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Rachel Bledi? Rachel? 

[No response]

MR. TROUT:

Okay. Nancy Boren? 

MS. BOREN:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Brenda Cabrera? 

MS. CABRERA:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Secretary Cegavske? 

MS. CEGAVSKE:

I'm a no. 

MR. TROUT:

Dana Debeauvoir? Dana?

[No response]
89

MR. TROUT:

Okay. Jared Dearing? 

MR. DEARING:

I apologize. My -- I'm having a bad connection. Can you 

please read the -- what exactly it is we are voting on specifically so 

I can make that correct vote, please? I apologize to the Chair. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

The motion under consideration is whether or not to approve 

resolution 2020-1, which staff displayed on the screen earlier in 

part. I don't know if you saw that or not or had previously read it. 

MR. DEARING:

I did, and I did read it. Were there amendments that were 

being added to this by Member Giles, or is that a second vote after 

this --

CHAIRMAN KING:

No. -- act? No amendments were offered, so this is a vote 

on the final version of the resolution, as submitted, without 

amendment. 

MR. DEARING:

My vote is aye.

MR. TROUT:

Thank you. Robert Dezmelyk, I think Anthony has his proxy. 

MR. STEVENS:
90

Vote aye on behalf of Robert Dezmelyk. 

MR. TROUT:

Thank you. Michael Dickerson? 

MR. DICKERSON:

I vote no. 

MR. TROUT:

Thank you. Batina Dodge? 

MS. DODGE:

Aye. 

MR. TROUT:

Heather Doxon? 

MS. DOXON:

Aye. 

MR. TROUT:

Heather, did -- I didn't catch that if that was you responding.

MS. DOXON:

I said aye. 

MR. TROUT:

I, thank you. 

MS. DOXON:

Yep. 

MR. TROUT:

Debbie Erickson. 
91

MS. ERICKSON:

Aye. 

MR. TROUT:

Gail Fenumiai? Gail, I'll watch the chat. 

MR. SHELLMAN:

She voted by proxy, Steve. 

MR. TROUT:

She has a proxy for Carol Thompson. 

MR. SHELLMAN:

I beg your pardon. 

MR. TROUT:

Okay. Julie Flynn also has -- someone has a proxy for her. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

This is the Chair. I have a proxy for Julie and vote aye. 

MR. TROUT:

Thank you. Bob Giles? 

MR. GILES:

So, I -- and I apologize. I'm a little confused myself. I 

thought the amendments I brought up or going to be included. 

Then we had a motion to table it, and so I'm really confused at this 

point how we -- you said -- because I thought we were voting with 

amendments, and now you're saying there were no amendments, 
92

and I brought them up. Then the Secretary asked to table it, so 

now I'm really confused. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I can address -- Bob, I can address that. It is complicated. 

The motion to table takes precedence, and so we considered it first. 

And then I made an offer -- I made a request for further discussion 

and had indicated before that that you could offer amendments 

either as a single document or as a series of amendments, and so 

that was the opportunity to offer those amendments. 

MR. GILES:

And -- well, I -- I don't believe that was clear because I 

offered to share my screen to bring them up. That's when the 

Secretary asked to table, and then I -- I thought my amendments 

carried through and you were seeking additional amendments. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, Bob, you did not again specify what exactly you were 

offering as an amendment, whether it was to be separate or one

omnibus amendment. We need to proceed with the roll call, so 

we'll do that, and then there are other -- there are other options 

which you can consider such as a motion to reconsider depending 

upon how you vote on the main motion. 

MR. GILES:
93

Is there an option to offer those resolutions separately as 

standalone resolutions? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

If we agree to amend the agenda, yes. 

MR. GILES:

Okay. Then I'll vote yes on this. 

MR. TROUT:

All right. Thanks, Bob. Joe Gloria? 

MR. GLORIA:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Barbara Goeckner? 

MS. GOECKNER:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Mark Goins? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Jackie Gonzales?

MS. GONZALES:

Aye. 

MR. TROUT:
94

Lance Gough? 

MR. GOUGH:

I vote no.

MR. TROUT:

Thank you. Mandy Grandjean? 

[No response]

MR. TROUT:

Okay. Steve Harsman? 

MR. HARSMAN:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Stuart Holmes? 

MR. HOLMES:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Keith Ingram? 

MR. INGRAM:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Neal Kelley? 

MR. KELLEY:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:
95

Doug Kellner? 

MR. KELLNER:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Brad King? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Dave Kunko? 

MR. KUNKO:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Justin Lee? 

MR. LEE:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Rene Loy? 

MS. LOY:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Paul Lux? 

MR. LUX:

Yes. 
96

MR. TROUT:

Bernadette Matthews? 

MS. B. MATTHEWS:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Maria Matthews? 

MS. M. MATTHEWS:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Guy Mickley? 

MR. MICKLEY:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Alice Miller? 

MS. MILLER:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Carol Morris? 

MS. MORRIS:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Jessica Myers? 

MS. MYERS:
97

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Brian Newby? 

MR. NEWBY:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Maria Pangelinan? 

MS. PANGELINAN:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Sorry. I put an extra vowel in there.

MS. PANGELINAN:

That's okay.

MR. TROUT:

Jerry Pettit? 

MR. PETTIT:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Janine Petty? 

MS. PETTY:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Chris Piper? 
98

MR. PIPER:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Lisa Power? 

MS. POWER:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Secretary Raffensperger? 

MR. RAFFENSPERGER:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Dag Robinson? Dag? 

MR. ROBINSON:

Sorry, yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Rob Rock? 

MR. ROCK:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Justin Roebuck? 

MR. ROEBUCK:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:
99

Secretary Schwab? 

MR. SCHWAB:

No. 

MR. TROUT:

Dwight Shellman? 

MR. SHELLMAN:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Jameson Shew?

MR. SHEW:

I vote yes.

MR. TROUT:

David Shively? 

MR. SHIVELY:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Rachel Soulek? 

MS. SOULEK:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Durward Stanton? 

MR. STANTON:

No. 
100

MR. TROUT:

Anthony Stevens? 

MR. STEVENS:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Michelle Tassinari? Michelle? 

MS. TASSINARI:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Carol Thompson, proxy to Gail? And I got those both off the 

chat, two yeses. Thank you. Steve Trout, I'm an aye. Ray 

Valenzuela? 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Mandy Vigil? 

MS. VIGIL:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Linda Von Nessi? Linda Von Nessi?

[No response] 

MR. TROUT:

Patty Weeks? 
101

MS. WEEKS:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Brittany Westfall? 

MS. WESTFALL:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Meagan Wolfe? 

MS. WOLFE:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Brian Wood? 

MR. WOOD:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:

Secretary Watson? Secretary Watson?

[No response] 

MR. TROUT:

And then Randall Wenger? 

MR. WENGER:

Yes. 

MR. TROUT:
102

Okay. Let me go back to those that I had earlier that we 

didn't chime in. So, Rachel Bledi?

[No response] 

MR. TROUT:

Okay. Dana Debeauvoir? 

[No response]

MR. TROUT:

Okay. I got Gail. Mandy Grandjean?

[No response]

MR. TROUT:

And Linda Von Nessi? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

As I indicated earlier, if there's anyone joining by telephone 

whose name has not been called, please call in to indicate your 

vote. We'll give you a minute to do that while the EAC staff 

prepares the results of the election. 

MR. DEARING:

I just received a text from one of the members saying that 

she couldn't get through. If someone can either wait for Mandy 

Grandjean's vote to come in or request that she get an opportunity 

to vote, that would be appropriate, please? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
103

Yes, certainly. Can -- does she have a number -- can EAC 

staff provide a number for her to call in? 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Steve, can you provide a number, please? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And then let us know when you've received her vote. 

MS. MERRILL:

This is Secretary Denise Merrill. Can you hear me? I am

joining by phone, but I thought we could do this verbally as well. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That's correct. Please proceed, Secretary. 

MS. MERRILL:

Okay. I vote aye. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

EAC staff, are we still waiting for our final telephone vote? 

MS. HARRINGTON:

We've provided a number in the group chat. I don't know if 

you see that. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I did. I did see that. I'm going to keep the polls open --

MS. JOINER:

Oh, geez.

CHAIRMAN KING:
104

I'm sorry, please proceed. 

MS. JOINER:

I'm sorry, Mr. King. This is Amanda Joiner, associate 

Counsel. I just received Amanda Grandjean's vote via email, so I'll 

add that to our tally. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And could you please report what that vote was?

MS. JOINER:

The vote was aye. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. With that, I will close the polls and request that 

we receive the results of the vote.

[Pause]

COMMISSIONER HICKS:

Mr. Chairman, this is Tom Hicks. I just want to make sure 

that Linda Von Nessi's vote was counted as well. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, Commissioner. We just received a text from her, and 

so I'm assuming it's included in the count we're going to be 

provided with shortly. 

COMMISSIONER HICKS:

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
105

We -- I've received a text with a vote. Because we're still 

waiting on results, I will direct staff to accept that vote from Mr. 

Thurston, a no vote. 

MR. SHELLMAN:

A point of order? Does someone have a proxy for Mr. 

Thurston, or is this just a connectivity issue, Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN KING:

No, this was where he had texted in. His vote just appeared 

on the screen a few moments ago. At least it appeared on my 

screen. 

MS. MUTHIG:

Yes --

MALE SPEAKER:

Mr. Chairman, he has a connectivity --

MS. MUTHIG:

-- earlier, Ms. Linda Von Nessi as well, and that should also 

be in the chat box. 

MR. SHELLMAN:

I see. I thought the Chair was saying you received a 

personal text or something. I understand. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

No. Thank you for raising the question. 

[Pause]
106

MR. PETTIT:

Mr. Chair, this is Jerry Pettit from Washington. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please proceed. 

MR. PETTIT:

I'm going to have to leave the meeting here shortly because 

of our current primary election ballot collections and so forth, so just 

to give you a heads up, that will happen here shortly. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, and good luck. 

MR. PETTIT:

Thank you, sir. 

MR. MERRILL:

Mr. Chairman, John Merrill from Alabama. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. MERRILL:

The results were overwhelmingly in support of the resolution 

passing. Is there a reason we can't receive the additional 

information on the agenda and go ahead and just have a final vote 

total reported to us later? Is that okay? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
107

Yeah. Secretary Merrill, let me ask EAC staff when you 

anticipate providing those vote totals? Would that be in the next 

minute or so? 

MR. RAYBURN:

We're checking. 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Kevin or Amanda, can you respond to that, please? 

MR. RAYBURN:

I'm being told 10 minutes. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Then, yes, Secretary Merrill, we certainly will proceed 

to other business while we're waiting for those final results. 

Barbara Goeckner, would you -- I'm sorry. Before we go to 

Barbara, Bob Giles, are you in the meeting? 

MR. GILES:

Yes, I'm here. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Do you wish to offer any amendments at this time to the 

agenda? 

MR. GILES:

Yeah, I would like to offer amendments that we adopt or we 

vote on the three resolutions that were passed unanimously by the 

TGDC at their September 19, 2019, meeting. 
108

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Is --

MR. LUX:

I second that, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the second. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Point of information. Does this require a vote of the body to 

add this to the agenda since it's not on the agenda? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, it does because we, as a body, took a vote to adopt the 

agenda earlier in this meeting, and therefore, it would take a vote to 

amend it. 

MR. ARDOIN:

And what vote does that require? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

But we will do that -- but we will do that by voice vote. 

MR. ARDOIN:

And does not require a two-thirds vote, a majority vote, or --
109

CHAIRMAN KING:

A simple majority vote. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Thank you. I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. Bob, do you have -- or perhaps EAC staff 

may, but do you have copies of the text of your amendment, which I 

understand would be all three resolutions combined in one -- in 

your motion? 

MR. GILES:

Yes. The only thing -- and if the EAC is going to provide --

it's on their website -- the last sentence of the third resolution just 

talks about the TGDC will provide a process recommendation 

within 30 days. I would remove that one sentence and then accept 

the three resolutions. And if it's easier to accept them as one 

resolution, I'm willing to offer that way. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. I want to be clear on your intent. As I understand it, 

you're offering as a single amendment the three resolutions that 

were referenced minus text at the end of the third. Could you 

clarify that for me? 

MR. GILES:
110

Yes, at the end of the third -- the last sentence of the third 

resolution would be removed. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Which reads roughly? 

MR. GILES:

Which reads, "The TGDC will provide a process 

recommendation within 30 days."

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Your motion has been made and seconded. Is there 

discussion regarding this motion to amend the agenda? We are 

not voting on the resolutions themselves. We're simply voting on 

whether we will consider this. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. ARDOIN:

This is the Secretary from Louisiana. I have a point-of-order 

question. I don't understand how we can amend an item that has 

already been disposed of. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

There has been no vote with regard to Mr. Giles's motion or 

the text of the amendments included in it. 
111

MR. ARDOIN:

I'm sorry. Let me clarify my point of order -- my question --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. 

MR. ARDOIN:

-- and that is if the resolution has already been dispensed 

with and is off the table by a vote of the body, then how is Mr. Giles 

able to amend an item that is no longer up for consideration 

because it's already been passed? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

The short answer is you are correct. This is not a motion to 

amend the text of resolution 2020-1. We are waiting for the final 

results of the vote on that. This is a motion to amend the agenda to 

consider the three additional resolutions referenced by Bob in his 

motion. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN KING:

Does that make sense? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Yes, sir. That means I --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay.
112

MR. ARDOIN:

-- misunderstood what the intent --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. It is complicated, so I appreciate the 

question. 

MR. RAYBURN:

Mr. Chairman, we do have that total if you want to hear it 

now or we can wait? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please, if you would announce it. 

MR. RAYBURN:

The total is 51 in favor of the motion, 20 against. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. The motion is adopted. Resolution 2020-1 is 

approved. We have before us the motion made and seconded to 

amend the agenda. Is there further discussion on that? 

MR. SCHWAB:

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this is Secretary Schwab out of 

Kansas. Procedurally, so you amend the agenda, but the net effect 

is it does not affect the 2020 resolution? So the man gets to speak, 

but he doesn't get to change the resolution, correct? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
113

That is correct. The resolution 2020-1 has been approved. 

It is the official action of the Standards Board. Mr. Giles is 

requesting to amend the agenda to consider additional resolutions 

that are in the form of a single amendment, but he will have no --

MR. SCHWAB:

So, these are asking us to consider another -- first off, so 

you're amending the agenda to create a new resolution to alter the 

resolution we just passed? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

We would be amending the agenda if his motion is approved 

to consider this as a topic. 

MR. SCHWAB:

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. I hope that helps. Okay. Is there further discussion 

on the motion to amend the agenda? 

MR. SHELLMAN:

Mr. Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, sir. 

MR. SHELLMAN:

This is Dwight Shellman from Colorado. I support the motion 

to amend the agenda. I think Mr. Giles's comments should be well-
114

taken. There was also in my mind confusion about the process 

following the motion to table, so I support his motion to amend the 

agenda so we can consider these additional items. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Further discussion on the motion to amend the 

agenda? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. ARDOIN:

This is Kyle Ardoin from Louisiana again, and I would direct 

this to Mr. Giles but to everyone as well. I do not oppose what he is 

attempting to do in terms of being considered. I oppose the method 

of which we are doing this because none of the three resolutions 

he's referring to have I seen. Maybe everyone else has, but I 

haven't, and I do not know what it is that we're actually voting on to 

consider. And having not had the ability to understand the three 

different resolutions that he wants to bring forward, I just think we're 

not doing this in the most educated fashion that we, as election 

officials, like the public to be educated in terms of knowing what 

they're voting on well ahead of time to vote. 
115

So I would just urge that we look at this by calling a special 

meeting at some very close date from here in order for us to be 

educated on what we're voting on. And I would be happy to study 

that very closely and work with Mr. Giles if I had any concerns on it, 

but I don't even know if I have concerns because I don't know what 

I'm voting on other than to amend an agenda to put items on that 

I've not seen before. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. Any further comments with regard to the 

motion to amend the agenda? 

MR. GILES:

So the -- hi, everybody. This is Bob Giles. And I apologize, 

Secretary, that -- and it might just be a -- I guess when we did it at 

the TGDC meeting, we did it at the meeting. We did not -- and 

maybe the process is a little bit different, a little bit more 

freewheeling at the TGDC meeting, and I was not aware I had to

submit these ahead of time. And that's why I attempted to get them 

into the resolution that we voted on. I do have them. There -- like I 

said, they're on the website. They'd be the exact same resolutions 

adopted by the TGDC unanimously. I can do a screen share so 

everybody can see them or if the EAC has the ability to put those 

resolutions up, that might be helpful. And I agree that you haven't 

seen them, and my point was to bring them up for discussion. 
116

They're very short resolutions, and they cover three very important 

topics. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. 

MR. LUX:

Mr. Chairman, I call the question. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Is there further discussion? 

MR. DEARING:

Chair, point of order if I could? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please, Mr. Dearing. 

MR. DEARING:

This is Jared Dearing in Kentucky. My -- I guess my larger 

concern is this -- is under Robert's Rules of Order -- and you are 

clearly more of a parliamentarian that I am -- but under Robert's 

Rules, if a motion to table something fails, then you go back to the 

prior motion. And at no point in time did Mr. Giles' motion receive 

any type of vote to move forward on anything other than whether or 

not his motion should have been part of the original amendment. 

I'm wondering if we can have some sort of counsel weigh in and

look specifically at how that took place and why we moved forward 

without receiving a vote from Mr. Giles' original amendment. 
117

CHAIRMAN KING:

I can address that and then defer to counsel. Again, you 

may recall Mr. Giles and I had a discussion about the form that his 

amendment or multiple amendments could take, but there was 

never a vote on the substance of any of those three amendments in 

any form, and so that language has not been defeated. 

MR. DEARING:

That's the reason --

CHAIRMAN KING:

It simply was not --

MR. DEARING:

-- why I believe it was asked to be tabled.

CHAIRMAN KING:

If I may --

MR. DEARING:

Sure.

CHAIRMAN KING:

-- it simply was not offered by Mr. Giles during the 

opportunity for further discussion and comment on resolution 

2020-1. And I appreciate that there -- you know, there may have 

been a misunderstanding, a miscommunication, so I apologize for 

that, but we have to move forward with the motion that's on the floor 

before us. And I'll defer if EAC wishes to add anything. 
118

MR. RAYBURN:

This is Kevin Rayburn, Counsel. I was just going to add, I --

from what I was following, it was clear to me that you asked are 

there any amendments after we tabled, and nothing was brought 

up, and so that was the time for Mr. Giles to bring up an 

amendment to 2020-1. Now that it's passed, I think we need to 

move on. 

MR. DEARING:

Would his not -- his original request for amendment not 

proceed at the tabling? You took -- he made a request to amend, 

and Mr. -- Member Giles, please let me know if I'm wrong. But he 

made a request to amend. There was a request to then table that, 

at which point that failed. I'm not sure why -- I understand why we 

would then open it back up for another discussion or another 

amendment when his original should still stand after the vote to 

table took place. 

MR. SCHWAB:

Actually, correction. In Robert's Rules of Order, when you 

put -- this is Secretary Schwab out of Kansas. When you do a 

substitute motion, it completely removes the underlying motion, so 

the motion would have to be renewed because otherwise you just 

go back to the original discussion. So, if I had to open up a motion 
119

and you moved to table, the motion to table eradicated the original 

motion to amend. 

MR. DEARING:

Thank you, sir, for clearing that up. I apologize. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. We are getting a very good exercise in practical 

parliamentarianship today, so I appreciate everyone's contribution. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman, Secretary Watson from Mississippi is trying to 

be recognized, and for some reason, he's been muted and can't 

unmute. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Can I ask EAC staff to identify that problem so that he can 

speak? 

MS. HARRINGTON:

Yes. Can you tell us if --

MR. WATSON:

Mr. Chairman, can you hear me now? Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:
120

Yes, I can hear you now. 

MR. WATSON:

So, I apologize. I'm on the road, and obviously I'm new to 

this board here. My understanding is we were set up to go for three 

hours, and I've got a couple things I've got to get done. Is there --

would there be an option -- and again, being new to this, could I 

move to adjourn? Would that be a superseding motion, we take 

this up at the next called meeting? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That would be out of order because we need to elect -- we 

need to conduct a meeting of the Executive Board, but we also 

need to receive the vote on filling our vacancy and have that 

individual, along with the new officers, sworn in. So, a motion to 

adjourn would be out of order because we're required by statute to 

engage in those activities, aside from anything else we might do 

today. 

MR. WATSON:

Thank you, sir. And I'm about to have to drop off, so I'm 

going to withdraw my nomination for the vote later, just so you 

know. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. I appreciate your presence 

and contribution. 
121

MR. WATSON:

Yes, sir. Have a great day. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

You, too. One last call. Does EAC staff have any legal 

analysis it wishes to present on the questions we discussed? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, I will call the question. The question is with 

regard to amending the agenda to include consideration of the 

items referenced by Mr. Giles in his motion. We'll do a voice vote. 

All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye or yes. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

All opposed to the motion, signify by saying nay. 

[Chorus of nays]

CHAIRMAN KING:

In the opinion of the Chair, the house is evenly divided, so 

I'm going to ask for a division of the house. So, again, if we can 

cast a vote. 

MR. MERRILL:

Mr. Chair? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. Who's speaking? 
122

MR. MERRILL:

John Merrill in Alabama. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, Secretary. 

MR. MERRILL:

My hearing is not always real good, but I thought it was 

pretty overwhelmingly a yes as opposed to the noes. Would you 

mind doing it one more time before we go down the alphabetized 

list for expeditious purposes? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. I'll be willing to do that. 

MR. MERRILL:

Okay. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

All in favor of the motion to amend the agenda to add the 

resolutions referenced by Mr. Giles, signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Those opposed, say nay. 

[Chorus of nays]

CHAIRMAN KING:
123

The Chair agrees that the ayes appear to have carried, so 

the agenda is amended to include the resolutions referenced by Mr. 

Giles in his motion. 

Mr. Giles, do you want to proceed to offer your motion, which 

has been -- or discuss your motion, which has been made -- no, I 

take that back. That was the motion to amend the agenda. If you'd 

like to move adoption of particular language, and assuming there's 

a second, we can proceed with consideration. 

MR. GILES:

So, yes, I would like to make a motion we adopt resolutions 

1, 2, and 3 made by the TGDC at their September 19th, 2019,

meeting with the one change in resolution #3 to take out the last 

sentence that says the TGDC will provide a process 

recommendation within 30 days. And I can screen share --

MR. GOUGH:

I'd like to --

MR. GILES:

-- that if you'd like. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. A motion was made and seconded, and 

if you'd like to speak to it, please proceed, Bob. 

MR. GILES:
124

So, I believe those -- and I could read them. They're not --

and I understand since some people are on the phone, they're not 

very long. Resolution #1, "We recommend EAC Commissioners 

formally adopt a yearly VVSG review process where proposed 

changes and/or additions considered by the TGDC and 

determinations are sent to the EAC Executive Director or person 

operating in that capacity to begin the adoption process and that, 

whenever possible, review process such as Board of Advisors

review, Standards Board review, and public comment periods run 

concurrently to ensure timely adoption of changes and/or 

additions."

Resolution #2, "We recommend EAC Commissioners permit 

EAC professional staff, in consultation with NIST staff, to make 

minor technical changes to the requirements in a timely manner. 

This should include the development of an appeals process for 

these minor technical changes."

And, resolution #3, "EAC Commissioners should ratify a 

provisional requirements review and approval process for the EAC 

professional staff to update VVSG requirements in the 

circumstances where there is no quorum of the EAC 

Commissioners."

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there a discussion regarding the motion?
125

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, who is speaking? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Louisiana. I call the question. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, the 

question is on the adoption of the resolutions. Those in favor will 

signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Those opposed, say nay. 

[Chorus of nays]

CHAIRMAN KING:

It appears to the Chair that the ayes have it. The motion is 

adopted. 

MR. GILES:

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. I recognize that we are running past our time, so 

we'll be expeditious as we can. The Chair recognizes Barbara 
126

Goeckner. Barbara, could you please give at least an abbreviated 

report regarding Postal Service guidance? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. ARDOIN:

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I, too, as Secretary have other 

obligations since we are in the middle of early voting for our August 

15th election and other Secretaries have other pressing issues to 

deal with. Could we move up in the agenda the voting on the seats 

that are necessary so that those of us who have to leave won't

have to lose our vote? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I would just simply ask Barbara to be as abbreviated as she 

can. She had offered to drop her presentation, but I think, as a 

matter of courtesy, and the fact that it was on the approved agenda, 

that we should provide at least an opportunity. 

So, Barb, would you please proceed? 

MS. GOECKNER:

I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me 

to speak, and I'll be very abbreviated because I know everybody 

has tasks to do. 
127

So, in the discussions at our USPS Committee, of which I 

am the Chair, we've talked about what happened in April in dealing 

with the pandemic and the mail-in ballots. Some of the things that 

we learned through that is that are the important tips, and I'm just 

going to headline these, and if anybody wants, I can send my 

presentation, notes, and my photos later through the EAC. We'll 

get those out to everybody. 

First and foremost, always encourage your voters to request 

and return their absentee ballots as early as possible. Mailing can 

take anywhere between three to seven days and sometimes longer, 

especially during this pandemic and under the new directives with 

the USPS, so they need to get those out and get those back as 

soon as possible. 

Using an intelligent mail barcode or an IMB on your address 

labels is also very, very critical. It will help move the piece of mail 

and that being a ballot through the mailing process and provide 

tracking information on that journey. It will go a much smoother 

process to get where it needs to be quicker. 

There is something called a tag 191, and I'll just hold that up 

really quick. This is a tag 191 that you can get through your local 

post office. If they don't have it, they can get it through their bulk

mailing center. These should always be attached to your tray for 

your absentee ballots that are being mailed or any ballots, and 
128

those that should stay with the tray and the ballot throughout the 

entire process to the processing plant. That alert postal workers 

these are ballots. It gets them through much quicker. 

Another key point is to always develop a relationship with 

your local postmaster and with the USPS. Developing that 

personal relationship will help you get ballots to and from them in a 

better resource, and you can have a discussion on what they see 

as points to help you better process those before they get to them 

so they'll go to the process quicker and they can give us tips on --

or rather we can give them tips on what's happening on our end as 

well. 

Something that's happening in the State of Wisconsin is our 

district USPS office is holding Zoom calls with all clerks throughout 

the State once a week for whoever can be on that call, and that 

sharing of information has been critical to assist us. 

One final piece is there is a website, electionmail.org. If you 

have any problems or situations with USPS and your election mail, 

please file a report on that website. That goes directly to the USPS 

for them to investigate and then find a resolution to the issue. You 

may not get a direct response, but it doesn't mean they didn't get it, 

and it is the best resource to file any issue you have. 

If anybody has any questions, feel free to email them to me 

or telephone if you like. My information is with the Standards 
129

Board. And that is about as quick as I can make it. Thank you for 

giving me --

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. 

MS. GOECKNER:

-- the time. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

You're very welcome. Thank you for your expedition and 

your patience and your work, much appreciated. 

MS. GOECKNER:

You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And does anyone have any quick questions for Barbara? 

FEMALE SPEAKER:

Hi there. It's Gloria. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, please proceed. 

FEMALE SPEAKER:

Sorry. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I'm sorry, I don't know if that was a question or not. Let me 

move on in the interest of time to the next item on the agenda, 

which is a combination of the Executive Board conducting a 
130

meeting and the Standards Board membership at large voting on 

the vacant seat. We can make the election board -- Executive 

Board rather, move along promptly. 

Officers are elected to serve a term of one year. The 

following individuals have volunteered to serve in the positions to 

set forth as follows: Ray Valenzuela has agreed to serve as 

Chairman, moving up from Vice Chairman. Steve Trout has agreed 

to serve as Vice Chairman moving up from Secretary. And Barbara 

Goeckner has agreed to serve as Secretary. 

I would make a motion that the Executive Board -- so we're 

only talking about the eight of us who are on the Executive Board

here -- approve the election of these individuals to the indicated 

offices for a term that will begin immediately upon the adjournment 

of this meeting. 

MR. ROCK:

Rob Rock from Rhode Island seconds. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Is there discussion? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Hearing none, all in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:
131

Opposed, say nay. 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. The motion is adopted. Thank you. 

MR. ARDOIN:

Abstain. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I'm sorry, who was that? 

MR. ARDOIN:

Louisiana abstains. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Oh, thank you. This was -- I appreciate that. This was just a 

vote amongst the executive board members, but --

MR. ARDOIN:

Oh, I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

That's okay. I appreciate that. 

I'd like to have the board -- the Executive Board, that is, take 

up one item of business, and that is we currently have committees 

and Chairmen and membership designated. We -- at a regular 

meeting, we would poll the membership to see what committees 

they're interested in serving on. And we have done so with regard 

to the 14 individuals who have joined the Standards Board since 
132

our meeting last year, so my motion for the Executive Board would 

be to reaffirm the appointment of all committee Chairs and 

members currently in existence and then appoint the members who 

have joined the board since to the committees they have indicated 

in correspondence to the Election Commission. 

MS. ERICKSON:

Debbie Erickson, Minnesota. I would second that. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. If no discussion, all those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Opposed, say nay. 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. 

Now, I will ask the EAC staff to guide us with regard to the 

election of the individual to fill the vacant seat on the Executive 

Board. 

MR. RAYBURN:

And, to clarify, it was Michael, I believe, Watson who 

withdrew his nomination earlier? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes, I believe that's right. 
133

MR. RAYBURN:

Okay. We are removing him from the poll. So, this will be a 

vote -- a secret ballot vote of the members. Proxies cannot vote for 

this, so it would just be those members. For those voting on the 

phone, we'll need them to communicate to our staff their selections, 

so if they could email Amanda Joiner, that would be the ideal way 

to communicate that or to -- and if they can't, that would be the 

ideal way to do that. That way we can preserve the secret ballot 

outside of this meeting. So that's AJoiner@EAC.gov. But we are 

going to put up a poll. Once again, only voting members can vote 

in the poll. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And while you're doing that, can you speak to the secrecy of 

the ballot with regard to our responses? 

MR. RAYBURN:

So, the way a poll is structured, the Zoom has an option to 

do anonymous voting so that the record will not actually record 

each individual person's name next to their vote. We will have the 

ability to have the tally, but your vote will not actually be tied to your 

selection through the Zoom application. And then for those that 

can't use the polling will have to email because on their phones we 

will -- you know, staff will make sure that those are tallied without 
134

your name when they are provided to the Certification Committee 

for the final certification of the vote. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. We'll expect the poll to be up shortly. Thank 

you. It just appeared. 

[Pause]

MS. MUTHIG:

You want to -- you just want -- you want your name removed 

from the voting? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

I'm sorry. Who is that addressed to? 

MS. MUTHIG:

Hello, Mr. King. This is Kristen with the EAC. I have Mr. 

Thurston, who is having some issues connecting, but he would like 

to remove himself from the voting. 

MR. THURSTON:

That is correct. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, some ballots, I'm sure, have already been cast. 

MR. ARDOIN:

I would request a replacement ballot. Just a little funny, 

thank you. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
135

Thank you. Yeah, we appreciate it. He may decline it if he 

wishes to if he is successful.

[Pause] 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And let me just note, proxies are not available in voting for 

the election of Executive Board members. So if, like myself, you 

hold a proxy, you can only vote once for yourself. 

[Pause]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. I'm preparing to close the polls in less than a minute. 

[Pause]

CHAIRMAN KING:

And the polls are closed. If we can have a report from staff 

with regard to the result, that may take a while. Let me ask if 

Commissioner Palmer is on the line. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Mr. Commissioner, would you please swear in our new set of 

Standards Board officers while we wait for the election returns for 

our seat? 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Sure. 
136

CHAIRMAN KING:

And those would be Ray Valenzuela, Steve Trout, and Barb 

Goeckner. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Okay. Thank you, Brad. I'm going to go ahead and start the 

oath and then just repeat after me, and then I'll move onto the next 

part of the oath. So, raise your right hand and repeat after me. 

***

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

***

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Thank you. Congratulations. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you, everyone. 

MS. GOECKNER:

Thank you.

MALE SPEAKER:

Congratulations. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Does EAC staff have a projection time for us with regard to 

the vote? 

MR. RAYBURN:
137

I'm being told the vote is being transferred right now to the 

Certification Committee. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. 

MR. RAYBURN:

You should have it in your email. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

All right. 

[Pause] 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Okay. And, Ray, I believe you are Chair of the Certification 

Committee, so if you could report the result, please, when you have 

it. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

My apologies. I didn't -- it just came in. Let's see here. The 

attached results are as follows as soon as it opens. And while this 

is opening, I want to let you know I voted "no" for myself as Chair

because nobody can do as good of a job as you, Brad. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Well, you're very kind. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

The results are -- in the voting are in, the -- by -- and we'll go 

just -- so the winner itself was Mr. John Merrill from Alabama by 48 
138

percent of the vote. Mr. Tatum came in second, and Mr. Thurston 

third. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Very good. Thank you, Ray. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

Sure. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

And I believe Secretary Merrill had to leave, as he indicated 

earlier. He had a prior commitment, and so, Commissioner 

Palmer --

MR. MERRILL:

Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Yes. 

MR. MERRILL:

This is John Merrill from Alabama. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Oh, I'm sorry. 

MR. MERRILL:

No, I am still here, and I appreciate it, and thank you for the 

support. I look forward to joining the board. 

CHAIRMAN KING:
139

Very good. Commissioner -- we're glad to have you. 

Commissioner Palmer, if you could please swear in Secretary

Merrill.

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Hold on one second. 

MR. VALENZUELA:

And I do want to note while they're making that -- this is Ray 

Valenzuela -- that if Secretary Merrill didn't -- wasn't here, I was 

going to of course do the thank you for him and Roll Tide. 

MR. MERRILL:

Roll Tide. 

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Secretary Merrill, could you raise your hand and repeat after 

me? 

MR. MERRILL:

Yes, sir. 

***

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

***

COMMISSIONER PALMER:

Congratulations. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. 
140

MR. MERRILL:

Thank you, Commissioner. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Thank you. Welcome, Secretary Merrill. 

That concludes the business portion of our meeting. I want 

to take a moment to express my thanks, first of all, to the Election 

Assistance Commission staff and Commissioners who have 

devoted countless hours in preparing for this meeting, which, as 

you'll recall, was rescheduled from earlier this year, and we've 

adapted to a virtual format. In particular, I wanted to call out 

Commissioner Palmer, our DFO, and Robin Sargent and Kristen on 

the staff for their help in preparing for this meeting. We could not 

have conducted it without them. 

I want to thank all of you members for giving the extra halfhour of devotion as we went through some very substantive and 

serious discussions. 

And I will conclude on a personal note by saying that it's 

been my distinct honor and privilege to serve as Chair even though 

it's for a one-year term, off and on for several times since 2011. 

And so, I will be very glad to turn over the gavel to the skillful hands 

of Ray and will look forward to continuing to participate as a 

member of the Executive Board.

With that being said, is there a motion to adjourn? 
141

MR. ROCK:

Rob Rock from Rhode Island. 

MS. CEGAVSKE:

So moved. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Is there a second? 

MS. CEGAVSKE:

Second, Barbara Cegavske from Nevada. 

CHAIRMAN KING:

Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes]

CHAIRMAN KING:

Opposed, no? 

[No response]

CHAIRMAN KING:

The ayes have it. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

***

[The Virtual Public Hearing of the United States Election Assistance Commission 

adjourned at 5:04 p.m.]

bw/cms