U.S. Election Assistance Commission

1201 New York Ave., NW – Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

www.eac.gov

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

TESTIMONY

OF

DONETTA DAVIDSON, COMMISSIONER

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION,

Subcommittee on Elections

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 2

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

Good morning Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) to discuss the Commission’s activities and my initiatives as 

Commissioner. 

I joined the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in August of 2005 

after serving as Colorado’s Secretary of State. I was reappointed to the Commission in 

2008, and I am currently serving the last year of my term. I began my career in election 

administration when I was elected in 1978 as the Bent County clerk and recorder in Las 

Animas, Colorado, a position I held until 1986. 

Since my arrival at the EAC, I have been very involved in the work of our Voting System 

Testing and Certification division, and I serve as the designated officer to the Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee (TDGC). The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 

mandates that the TGDC help EAC develop voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG). 

The VVSG set the standards against which voting systems are tested. The director of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) serves as the chair of the TGDC 

and provides technical support to the Committee. In addition, NIST and the EAC jointly 

choose four members with specific technical expertise of the TGDC. The EAC uses the 

work product of the TGDC as the basis for all voluntary voting systems guidelines 

promulgated by the Commission as prescribed by HAVA. 

Additionally, HAVA specifies that NIST provide recommendations to EAC regarding 

voting system test laboratories. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, EAC’s annual 

appropriations have included funds for NIST support.

Today I will focus on my activities as the EAC’s most recent chair, as well as provide an 

overview of the Voting System Testing and Certification program.

2010 ACTIVITIES

During 2010 I served as chair of the EAC, and my top priority was to make sure the 

Commission was prepared to provide resources to both voters and election officials 

during this federal election year. 

The 2010 federal election year included many new election administration initiatives. Ten 

years ago, early voting was rare. Absentee ballot tracking, vote centers and ballot on 

demand were unheard of in most jurisdictions. Live webcasts of the vote tabulation 

process were not available. In 2010, we saw many of these innovations become 

commonplace. 

HAVA was a catalyst for many of these innovations. For instance, the HAVA-mandated 

move to statewide voter registration databases facilitated the migration from paper poll 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 3

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

books to digital poll books, which makes the voter check-in process faster and more 

accurate. We have observed poll workers using the poll books and commenting about 

how much easier the voter check-in process has become. 

Jurisdictions were also electronically transmitting registration materials and blank ballots 

to military and overseas voters to help ensure they receive their ballots on time and to 

comply with the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, which 

Congress passed in 2009. 

I chaired nine public meetings in 2010, and the topics included the Maintenance of 

Expenditure policy, which was adopted; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee 

Voting Act (UOCAVA) Pilot Program; the Quality Monitoring Program and the 

successful partnership with Cuyahoga County, Ohio; and voter preparation and 

information using modern communication tools like social media. In December of 2010, 

we held a public meeting which included a review of the election, and a roundtable 

discussion featuring election officials, and representatives from voting system 

manufacturers and test laboratories. These meetings were planned to showcase topics and 

innovations that would be useful to both election officials and voters.

VOTING SYSTEM TESTING & CERTIFICATION

PROGRAM

EAC Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2014, Goal 4: Build public

confidence in elections by testing and certifying voting systems to improve 

system security, operation and accessibility. 

The anticipated outcome of the goal is that voting equipment operates more 

reliably and securely and provides greater accessibility to the disabled. States, the 

District of Columbia and territories use EAC’s testing and certification program 

to ensure voting systems meet their respective standards and statutory 

requirements.

Goal 4 consists of three strategic objectives: 

1) develop and update the voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG);

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Enacted CR Request

$1,861,008 $1,704,685 $1,307,493
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 4

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

2) provide for the accreditation and revocation of accreditation of independent, 

non-Federal laboratories qualified to test voting systems to Federal standards; 

and 

3) administer the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting 

system hardware and software by accredited laboratories.

The Voting System Testing and Certification Program

Under HAVA, EAC is responsible for assisting states with improvements to voting 

systems by providing a voluntary federal certification program. The Voting System 

Testing and Certification Program also provides the public with the opportunity to review 

every aspect of the certification process, such as voting equipment system information, 

test plans and reports, and reports on voting system anomalies in the field.

EAC accredits voting system test labs which, using the VVSG, evaluate voting 

systems, devices, and software to determine if they provide the functionality, 

accessibility, and security capabilities needed for reliable election results. The test 

labs provide recommendations to EAC, and the Commission’s executive director 

determines whether to issue a certification.

Participation by the states in EAC's Voting System Testing and Certification Program is 

voluntary. States use varying approaches for both the type of testing required and the 

language used to require testing. The following four categories illustrate the diverse 

approaches, including the degree states have mandated the use of EAC’s Testing and 

Certification Program. 

• Thirteen states require federal certification. Relevant state statutes and/or rules 

require that voting systems be certified by a federal agency. 

• Nine states require testing to federal voting system standards. Thirteen states 

require testing by a laboratory accredited to federal standards. 

• Twenty states do not have federal certification requirements. Relevant state 

statutes and/or regulations do not mention any Federal agency, certification 

program, laboratory, or standard. 

These varying requirements of States, the District of Columbia, and territories as well as 

the location of EAC-certified systems, are available via an interactive map on 

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

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 5

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

Comprehensive procedures for the Program are detailed in EAC’s Voting System Testing 

and Certification Program Manual. The program supports local elections officials in the 

areas of acceptance testing and pre-election systems. It also increases quality control in 

voting system manufacturing by means of periodic manufacturing facility audits of EACregistered manufacturers, and provides clear procedures to manufacturers for the testing 

and certification of voting systems to specified Federal standards consistent with the 

requirements of HAVA.

In addition to its certification duties, the division works in a cooperative and coordinated 

manner with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to evaluate and 

accredit voting system test laboratories (VSTLs). A condition for accreditation requires

all VSTLs to possess a valid accreditation from NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP). NVLAP accreditation is the primary means by which 

EAC ensures that each VSTL meets and continues to meet the technical requirements of 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 6

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

the EAC program. It sets the standards for each VSTL’s technical, physical and personnel 

resources, as well as its testing, management, and quality assurance policies and 

protocols. EAC received the first two recommendations to accredit laboratories from 

NVLAP in January 2007.After NIST provides its list of recommended laboratories, EAC 

sends a letter to the laboratories inviting them to apply for EAC accreditation under the 

VSTL program. Procedural requirements for the VSTL Program are detailed in EAC’s 

Voting System Test Laboratory Manual. Currently, six voting systems are certified, as 

are two laboratories. Laboratories apply for EAC accreditation by invitation from the 

Commission. A letter of invitation from EAC identifies the scope of accreditation for 

which the laboratory may apply. After a thorough review of the laboratory application, 

the Commissioners vote on whether to accredit each potential VSTL. EAC monitors 

VSTLs through a comprehensive compliance management program.

The Compliance Management Program

Program staff gather information on the procedures and practices of its VSTLs. There are 

three main sources of information:

1) VSTL Notifications of Changes;

2) EAC Requests for Documents or Information; and

3) EAC On-Site Reviews.

The information collected is reviewed by EAC to ensure that VSTLs meet all program 

requirements. 

EAC staff has continued to improve the certification process by answering technical 

questions from election officials and manufacturers, helping VSTLs understand how to 

test specialized systems, reviewing test plans, tracking anomalies, and keeping the 

technical review and approval process moving forward. 

Each VSTL is also required to provide to division staff a weekly update of the project 

timeline for all voting system testing engagements, and to promptly inform staff when 

testing discrepancies or other actions require changes to the project schedule. Staff 

continues to hold weekly teleconferences with the laboratories and manufacturers of all 

testing engagements underway and to hold kick-off meetings with the labs and 

manufacturers to give EAC staff and technical reviewers an opportunity to meet with the 

labs and manufacturers and ask technical questions about the systems submitted for 

testing. 

In addition to voting system certification and laboratory accreditation, EAC along with its 

Standards Board, Board of Advisors, and Technical Guidelines Development Committee 

(TGDC) (chaired by the director of NIST and comprised of 14 other members) work 

together to update and implement voluntary testing guidelines for voting systems. Efforts 

continue into research and development of improved guidelines for the next iteration 

VVSG document. Issues in the VVSG include:
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 7

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

• Software Independence

• Common Data Format

• Accessibility

• Vote-by-Phone systems

• EPollBook

• Open Ended Vulnerability Testing 

The Voting System Testing and Certification (T&C) Division

T&C consists of six full-time staff and five part-time technical experts. To save 

contractual overhead costs, EAC converted two contractor staff at a cost of $350,000 per 

year to two half-time technical reviewer staff, taking advantage of the Part-Time 

Annuitants Act authority at a cost of $220,500 in late FY 2010. Further, by the end of 

FY 2011, EAC plans on decreasing staff by one of the part-time reviewers.

The division’s FY 2012 budget request includes $201,700 for travel, $15,000 for the 

purchase of voting systems for in-house use, $3,500 for supplies, $1,800 for printing, and 

$1,500 for training.

Transfer to NIST

In 2012, EAC plans on transferring $3,250,000 to NIST and entering into an interagency 

agreement for the activities specifically required under HAVA Sections 221 Technical 

Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), 231 Certification and Testing of Voting 

Systems, and 245 Study and Report on Electronic Voting and the Electoral Process. EAC 

and NIST continue to work on the development of testable guidelines for remote 

electronic voting systems to assist voters covered under the Uniformed and Overseas 

Citizens Absentee Voting Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010.

EAC Voting System Testing & Certification Program 

Voting Systems Status Report of Certified Voting Systems; Voting Systems Currently 

Under Testing

Active Systems

Manufacturer Voting System 

(Name/Version)

Testing 

Standard VSTL Testing Application 

Test Plans

(Status/Current 

Version/Date)

Test Reports

(Status/Current 

Version/Date)

Certification 

Status 

Dominion Sequoia WinEDS 

4.0 2002 VSS SLI Global 08/09/2007 Approved Ver. 3.004/17/2009

Draft Ver. 2.0

11/30/2010

Currently under 

testing 

Dominion Democracy Suite 

4.0

2005 

VVSG Wyle 04/19/2010 n/a n/a

Currently under 

testing -

Certification 

Testing Timeline

02/28/11
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 8

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

ES&S 

Unity 3.2.1.0

Previously Unity 

3.0.1.0 & Unity 

3.0.1.1 w. ATS 1.3

2002 VSS Wyle

06/12/2007

REVISED

08/17/2009

Approved Rev. B

02/28/2011

Draft Rev. A

02/28/11 

Currently under 

testing

ES&S Unity 5.0.0.0 2005 

VVSG Wyle 02/18/2010 Draft Rev 1.012/21/10 n/a

Currently under 

testing -

Certification 

Testing Timeline

02/28/11

Certified Systems

Manufacturer Voting System 

(Name/Version)

Testing 

Standard VSTL Testing Application 

Test Plans

(Status/Current 

Version/Date)

Test Reports

(Status/Current 

Version/Date)

Certification 

Status 

MicroVote EMS Ver. 4.0 2005 

VVSG iBeta 07/17/2007

Final Ver. 3.0

updated version 4.0 

submitted with Test 

Report V.4.0 

12/19/2008

Final Ver. 5.0

03/02/2009

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

02/06/2009

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

12/31/2008

ES&S Unity 3.2.0.0 Rev 1

(Modification)

2005 

VVSG & 

2002 VSS

iBeta 06/22/2010 Final Ver. 4.0

09/23/2010

Final Ver. 4.0

10/12/2010 

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

08/24/2010

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

07/22/2010

ES&S Unity 3.2.0.0 2002 VSS iBeta 03/19/2007 Final Ver. 2.0 (iBeta) 

04/03/2009

Final Ver. 4.0

07/22/2009

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

07/21/2009

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

07/20/2009

ES&S/ 

Dominion 

(Premier) 

Assure 1.2 2002 VSS iBeta 04/05/2007

Final Ver. 2.0 (iBeta) 

04/06/2009 Final Ver. 3.0

08/06/2009

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

08/06/2009

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

08/03/2009
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 9

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

Unisyn OpenElect 1.0 2005 

VVSG Wyle 06/03/2008 Final Rev. B07/23/2009

Final Rev. B

01/14/2010

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

01/13/2010 

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

01/12/2010

MicroVote EMS Ver. 4.0B 

(Modification)

2005 

VVSG Wyle 6/23/2009 Final Modification09/08/2009

Final Rev. C

06/21/2010

Certified Voting 

System Final 

Decision

08/17/2010 

Certificate of 

Conformance

Initial Decision 

on Certification

made on 

08/12/2010

CONCLUSION

EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification program provides value to election 

officials, regardless of whether their jurisdiction requires EAC certification. The baseline 

information provided by EAC about these voting systems allows states to limit their 

testing to state specific issues. If a state chooses to only partially participate in EAC’s 

certification program, the information has the potential to save the state millions of 

dollars and six to twelve months of testing time. 

I have watched the evolution of this program since my arrival at the EAC in 2005. At that 

time, no voting systems had been certified by the federal government. Today, four voting 

systems are certified and we are working with jurisdictions throughout the nation, sharing 

information and collaborating on how to make voting systems operate more efficiently. 

Voting system manufacturers are held accountable through EAC’s Quality Monitoring 

Program and the transparent process which includes posting on EAC.gov all test reports 

and plans so the public can review the process and the results. We issue system 

advisories, announcements of investigations and publicly display the location of all EACcertified systems in the field. I believe the new level of accountability and transparency 

EAC has brought to the process of certifying voting systems will ultimately lead to an 

increase in voter confidence. 
This information is property of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission,

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005

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

Page 10

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2011

EAC staff has taken action to streamline the entire testing and certification process, 

including in-person kick-off meetings, weekly conference calls with all parties and daily 

communication with the test labs and the manufacturers. The Commission has taken 

strong steps to increase efficiency without sacrificing the program’s high standards. 

EAC has tasked NIST to create uniform test suites for the labs to use. These suites will 

help to ensure better consistency and efficiency in testing, ultimately saving time and 

money. 

As a former election official, I know that the information provided by EAC and the 

expertise and support offered by the Voting System Testing and Certification program 

team is very valuable to the election administration community and to voters.