Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Seated before you 

today are the four members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): 

DeForest 

B. Soaries, Jr., Chairman; Gracia Hillman, Vice Chair; Paul DeGregorio; and 

Ray Martinez III. Our biographies are attached to this statement. 

We are pleased to be here this morning to discuss our 2004 activities to 

implement the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). In our testimony, we will 

review our progress and accomplishments, and our plans for the balance of this fiscal 

year and FY 2005. 

We appreciate the vested interest that this Committee has in our work. We 

recognize the importance of what you have done for America as the authorizers of 

HAVA and look forward to today’s discussions. 

Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the accomplishments that we have made to date. 

As you and the members of this Committee know, we have worked under very 

challenging circumstances, which we will address in this testimony. Nonetheless, we 

decided, in strong bi-partisan unity, to not let the challenges and obstacles that we faced 

prevent us from doing the work that the President, Congress and perhaps most 

importantly, the voters of America, are depending on us to do. 

In our testimony this morning, we will discuss the status of several important 

aspects of HAVA, including Title II payments; our review of the use, reliability, 

accessibility and security of various voting machines; and other issues related to 

HAVA implementation, including the recruitment and training of poll workers, and 

provisional voting. We will review our clearinghouse, resource and grants programs 

functions and steps we have taken to work with election administrators to minimize 

chances for irregularities in the November 2004 elections. 

As you know Mr. Chairman, HAVA established EAC as a new Federal agency, to 

be headed by four Commissioners, who are appointed by the President. The 

Commissioners serve staggered terms and no more than two of them may be of the same 

political party. HAVA Section 203(a)(4) required EAC to be established no later than 120 

days after the enactment date of the law. HAVA was enacted on October 29, 2002; 

therefore, EAC should have been established by February 26, 2003, but the 

Commissioners were not appointed until December 13, 2003. This delay resulted in a 

number of set backs 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 1 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

in the implementation of HAVA, including the appropriation of insufficient Fiscal Year 

2004 funds ($1.2 million) to support the start up and operational costs of EAC. 

Appendix B summarizes HAVA Authorizations and Appropriations for FY 2003 and 

2004. 

GETTING STARTED 

When we began our work at the beginning of January 2004, we were immediately 

confronted with the significant challenge of finding the estimated $800,000 that it would 

cost to meet HAVA requirements that State plans on HAVA implementation be 

published in the Federal Register. For without satisfying this requirement, EAC would 

not have been able to release the $2.3 billion that had been appropriated in FY 2003 and 

2004, for Title II requirements payments to the States. In cooperation with GSA, EAC 

was able to publish the State plans and is preparing to issue payments to 25 States that 

have self-certified and have satisfied the eligibility requirements of HAVA section 253. 

An additional 2 self-certifications are pending review by the U.S. Department of Justice 

and we expect to continue receiving self-certifications from the other 28 States during the 

next several weeks.1 

Our other major challenge was to determine how, with an FY 2004 appropriation 

of only $1.2 million, we could afford to rent, furnish and equip EAC offices; hire staff; 

pay our salaries; receive the transfer of responsibilities of the Federal Election 

Commission Office of Election Administration (OEA), as required by HAVA; and meet 

at least some of the HAVA mandates to establish voting system standards and adopt 

voluntary guidelines for the States. 

We began hiring EAC staff in May and under our current budget and cash flow 

projections, we must stagger our hiring and will bring on board about 2 employees per 

month through September. We were able to rent office space on April 1, but only after 

the 

U.S. General Administration Services (GSA) approved a Fiscal Year 04 rent waiver for 

EAC. And, we were able to accept transfer of the OEA on April 1, when EAC moved in 

to its new offices. 

HAVA mandates EAC to appoint an Executive Director, a General Counsel, and 

an Inspector General but as noted above, our funding constraints have caused us to 

postpone these hires. We expect to appoint an Interim Executive Director and the General 

Counsel within the next couple of months. Additionally, we are considering our options 

with respect to the appointment of an Inspector General (IG), including exploring the 

possibility of sharing an IG with another small commission. In the meantime, EAC 

received 5 employees with the transfer of OEA on April 1, and has utilized employees on 

detail from other agencies to fill our critical staffing needs. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

These funding limitations and the delayed establishment of EAC also led to 

several 

1

 Under HAVA, references to States includes American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico 

and U.S. Virgin Islands. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 2 

set backs in the implementation of HAVA. These delays are fully addressed in our Fiscal 

Year 2003 Annual Report, which was submitted to this Committee and to the Senate 

Rules on April 30, 2004. For your convenience, we have provided another copy of our 

FY 2003 Annual Report with this statement. 

Despite our late start and the limitations of our resources, we have accomplished a 

fair amount since the beginning of January 2004. Outlined below are some of these 

accomplishments. 

EAC ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE BEING ESTABLISHED IN 

MIDDECEMBER 2003. 

January 5, 2004 EAC Commissioners held a planning session and set timetables for 

the completion of various tasks. 

February - March 

2004 

EAC Commissioners traveled to several states to observe the 

administration of elections during the Presidential primaries. 

Locations visited included California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

Illinois, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Washington, 

DC. 

March 23, 2004 EAC held its first public meeting. Commissioners discussed updates 

on various administrative matters and timetables for future activities. 

The Commissioners elected DeForest B. Soaries as 

Chairman, and Gracia M. Hillman as Vice Chair. EAC announced 

that State plans would be published in the Federal Register on or 

about March 24, 2004, and that it would hold a public hearing within 

45 days on the use, security and reliability of electronic voting 

systems. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

March 24, 2004 

EAC published all 55 State plans in the Federal Register, which 

began the HAVA required 45-day comment period, after which 

States are to self certify that they are in compliance with HAVA in 

order to receive Title II requirements payments. 

March 31, 2004 

EAC submitted its FY 2005 budget justification to the Senate and 

House Appropriation subcommittees on Transportation, Treasury 

and General Government. 

April 1, 2004 The Determination Order was transacted to officially transfer 

property, files and personnel belonging to the Federal Election 

Commission Office of Election Administration to EAC. This 

included approximately $500,000 of unobligated funds for FY 2004. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 3 

April 4, 2004 With support from GSA, EAC moved into its offices at 1225 New York 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 

May 1, 2004 EAC launched its website at www.eac.gov. 

May 3, 2004 EAC released its Human Factors Report on “Improving the Usability and 

Accessibility of Voting Systems and Products.” 

May 5, 2004 EAC held its first public hearing on the use, security, accessibility 

and reliability of electronic voting in the United States. 

May 12, 2004 EAC testified before the House Appropriation Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Treasury and General Government regarding 

EAC’s FY 2005 budget justification. 

June 3, 2004 EAC held its second public hearing to identify best practices, problems and 

transition issues associated with Optical Scan and Punch Card 

voting systems, and the successes and problems identified with the 

use of Provisional Voting. 

EAC ACTIVITIES 

Electronic Voting Security 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

Before describing our current activities, we will address the issue of Electronic 

Voting Security. Mr. Chairman, we recognize this issue is of paramount concern to this 

Committee and others in Congress. It is also of paramount concern to voters across 

America who want to be reassured that on Election Day they will have unaltered access 

to a ballot and that once that ballot is cast, their vote will be counted. We have found that 

a great deal of our work has been shaped by this issue since we took office just a few 

months ago. 

EAC is aggressively addressing the concerns that have arisen from the increased 

use of electronic voting devices. Time is of the essence and we have made this is a 

priority issue. We held our first public hearing on the use, reliability and security of 

electronic voting devices. Following that hearing, we have read many reports and have 

held discussions with election administrators, computer scientists, advocates, scholars, 

government officials and voters. 

We will issue a report of the hearing very soon and soon thereafter, we will 

issue useful, practical and adaptable Best Practices Guidelines to election administrators 

across the country. EAC believes there are many things that election administrators can 

do to increase the likelihood of the reliability of voting equipment and systems for the 

November 2004 elections and decrease the likelihood of irregularity. 

In the meantime, what we have concluded is that we should not rush for a quick 

fix 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 4 

for November. The issue of Electronic Voting Security warrants thorough study, 

careful analysis, and deliberate review. EAC is prepared to do all of that. Among the 

issues we are considering include vendors allowing election officials to analyze the 

proprietary source codes of their software with appropriate protections of 

nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. 

Additionally, we are considering the options available to election administrators 

and the steps that can be taken by election jurisdictions that use electronic voting 

devices to identify and implement enhanced security measures in November of this 

year. To that end, we will issue Best Practice Guidance in time for them to be useful for 

the November elections. 

Other issues we are considering include Voting Software vendors submitting their 

certified software to the National Software Reference Library (NSRL) at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to facilitate the tracking of software 

version usage. Further, we are exploring options available to EAC to receive information 

about suspicious electronic voting system activity, including software programming that 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

could be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice Elections Crimes Branch for 

investigative and prosecutorial action. And, we are considering options to compile 

information about experiences from the November 2004 elections that can inform the 

work of the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee that will develop new 

voluntary voting systems standards. 

Voting System Standards and Guidelines 

HAVA places an important responsibility on EAC to develop and adopt 

standards and voluntary guidelines for voting systems and voting equipment used in the 

55 States. This responsibility includes the testing, certification, decertification and 

recertification of voting systems hardware and software. 

Voting System Standards in the United States evolved over the past 25 years. In 

1975, the National Bureau of Standards issued a report on The Effective Use of 

Computing Technology in Vote Tallying. The report cited computer-related problems but 

it wasn’t until 1984, that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) received some funds to 

develop voluntary national standards for computer-based voting systems. 

We believe that it is accurate to say that prior to the establishment of EAC, the 

federal government did not have a comprehensive program to establish standards and 

guidelines for the use of voting equipment and to regularly test the equipment and 

related voting systems. The FEC published the first set of standards in 1990, and updated 

them in 2002. Part of this work was done in conjunction with the National Association 

of State Election Directors (NASED), which operated a voluntary program to develop 

standards with limited funds. Under HAVA, EAC has inherited these Standards, which 

must be revised, updated, adopted and issued as guidelines to States. 

There is an urgent need for EAC to do this work, as is evident by the 

ongoing debate surrounding the use, accessibility, reliability and security of 

electronic voting 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 5 

devices, commonly referred to as DREs. In November 2000, more than 100 million 

voters cast their ballots in about 7,000 local voting jurisdictions at 200,000 polling places. 

Numerous different voting devices were in place including touch screen DREs, optical 

scanners, lever machines, punch cards and paper ballots. The problems with voting 

equipment in the 2000 presidential election are well known and certainly contributed to 

the enactment of HAVA. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, there are still numerous types of voting equipment in 

place that will be used on November 2, 2004. According to Election Data Services, Inc., 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

it is estimated that the following types of voting equipment will be used by the 

corresponding percentage of voters when they cast their ballots in November 2004. 

Optical Scan – 37%; Electronic (DREs) – 31%; Punch Card – 15%; Lever – 15%; Paper 

Ballots – 2.5%. It is further estimated that 46% of counties will use Optical Scan and 

22% will use electronic voting machines. 

EAC has an enormous responsibility to work with States to implement HAVA so 

as to minimize future problems. We accept the urgency of the work that must be done to 

meet this responsibility and in so doing, we will use a responsible and thoughtful 

approach. 

As mandated by HAVA, EAC will work with the National Institute of Standards 

(NIST) to establish standards and voluntary guidelines for the use of voting equipment. 

This is the appropriate role for EAC and NIST. These standards and guidelines cannot 

be responsibly established without the benefit of research, analysis and testing. 

HAVA sections 271 and 281 require EAC to administer grants for research, 

testing of voting systems and pilot programs to support HAVA implementation and 

authorizes up to $30 million for this purpose, as is shown in the table below: 

Program Amounts Authorized Amounts Appropriated 

Title II – Voting Technology 

Improvement Research Grants $20 million-FY03 $0 

Title II – Grants for Pilot Programs 

to Test New Voting Systems $10 million-FY03 $0 

EAC recognizes that research and testing activities are a critical prerequisite to its 

establishment of standards and voluntary guidelines and is discussing with the 

Administration funding needs for FY 2005 to conduct research, analysis and testing. In 

the meantime, we are developing a HAVA Tool Kit and Best Practices guidelines that 

will be issued in July to state and local election officials in the 55 States. Further 

information about the HAVA Tool Kit and Best Practices are described on Page 13 of 

this testimony. 

2004 Activities 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 6 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

EAC is working closely with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to engage key constituencies, including election administrators, vendors, 

advocacy groups and voters, to develop guidelines for voting systems. Through this 

work, we will: 

 Develop recommended solutions in areas critical to ensuring that voting systems 

are secure, will protect individual privacy, allow voter anonymity, and are 

accurate and free from fraud and tampering. 

 Ensure that voting systems can be tested for compliance to usability and 

accessibility guidelines and to new standards beginning in 2006, as required by 

HAVA. 

 Review the Federal Election Commission 2002 Voting System Guidelines, 

conduct an evaluation of independent, non-federal laboratories and accredit 

laboratories (Independent Testing Authorities – ITAs) to carry out testing, 

certification, decertification and recertification of voting systems. 

In the long run, Mr. Chairman, standards and guidelines need to be evaluated and 

updated more frequently than once every ten years, as has been done in the past. 

Additionally, the number of ITAs needs to be expanded. Currently there is one ITA to 

test and certify hardware and two that test and certify software. 

In the meantime, EAC and NIST are working to address today’s concerns about 

voting systems standards. On May 3, 2004, the EAC released its “Human Factors” report 

on “Improving the Usability and Accessibility of Voting System Products.” As required 

by HAVA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted the 

important research for this report, which we will be use to guide our work. Computer 

scientists and usability experts at NIST researched and wrote the report for the EAC, as 

mandated by HAVA. The report assesses human factors issues relating to the process of a 

voter casting a ballot as he or she intends, then makes 10 recommendations based on that 

research to help make voting systems and products simpler to use, more accurate and 

easily available to all individuals—including those with disabilities, language issues and 

other impediments to participating in an election. The reports main recommendation is 

for the development of performance-based voluntary standards for the usability of voting 

systems. Additionally, the report emphasizes developing standards in such a way that 

would allow independent laboratories to test systems to see if they conform to the 

standards. A full copy of the Human Factors report is included with this testimony. 

In addition to the Human Factors research, EAC is working with NIST on the 

following activities: 

 Formation of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, of 

which NIST will serve as Secretariat. 

 Development of a recommendation of an International Standard (ISO 

17025) Laboratory Accreditation Program for Independent Testing 

Authorities. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 7 

• Development of a NIST voting web site (http://vote.nist.gov) to include relevant 

Federal Information Processing standards (FIPS) to provide state and local 

election officials with an initial set of computer security “best practices”. 

NIST will regularly update the election community with the work of the 

Technical Guidelines Development Committee at its web site http://vote.nist.gov. They 

have already initiated a “Key News and Updates” feature accessible from the home page. 

We are discussing additional FY05 funding needs with the Administration that 

would enable EAC to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing standards and 

guidelines and a comprehensive evaluation of the accreditation process. Additionally, 

EAC would be able to expedite its process to accredit an increased number of ITAs, 

which would expand the certification and recertification services currently available to 

the vendors who manufacture the voting systems. The important end results will be more 

timely compliance with HAVA and the development of guidelines that election 

administrators can use when determining what voting equipment they will ultimately 

use. 

Technical Development Guidelines Committee 

HAVA establishes a 15-member Technical Guidelines Development Committee 

(TGDC) that is charged with the responsibility of developing voluntary guidelines for 

voting systems and voting equipment that will be reviewed by the EAC Board of 

Advisors and Standards Board and ultimately adopted by EAC. 

As established by HAVA, TGDC is to be chaired by the Director of the National 

Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). Dr. Arden Bement currently serves as 

Director of NIST and will therefore chair the committee. In consultation with NIST, EAC 

has appointed the other 14 members of TDGC, which will include representatives from 

the American National Standards Institute, the National Association of State Election 

Directors, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Architectural and 

Transportation Barrier Compliance Board (commonly referred to as the Access Board), 

the HAVA Standards Board, the HAVA Board of Advisors, and individuals with 

technical and scientific expertise. TGDC consists of some of the best technological 

experts in the country, as well as dedicated election officials and public representatives. 

EAC plans to hold the first meeting of the TGDC in early July. HAVA provides 

that the TGDC will have a 9-month timetable to draft voting system guidelines. These 

draft guidelines will then be reviewed by the Standards and Advisory Boards before they 

reach the EAC for final disposition. With all certainty, public hearings will be conducted 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

on this important issue during the process to insure adequate input by officials and voters 

alike. 

HAVA provides that the Voting System Guidelines will be voluntary but EAC 

knows that most States and jurisdictions will follow these guidelines as they develop 

their own standards for election equipment used in their states. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 8 

STANDARDS BOARD and BOARD OF ADVISORS 

Critical to the establishment of standards and voluntary guidelines for the use of 

voting equipment is the participation of key stake holders. The HAVA required 

establishment of a 37-member Board of Advisors and a 110-member Standards Board 

provides two vehicles for stake holder input in to the work of EAC and the establishment 

of standards and guidelines. The first meetings of these two boards are scheduled for June 

28 and 29, 2004, in Houston, TX. 

Mr. Chairman, we have recently filed the Charters for each of these boards with 

the offices of this Committee, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and 

the Committee Management Secretariat of the U.S. Government Services Administration 

(GSA). The charters specify the Objectives, Duties, Membership, Administrative 

Provisions and Duration of each board. In summary, HAVA requires that these boards 

conduct a number of activities, including that they meet; review standards, voluntary 

guidelines, and best practice guidance to the States; and various other HAVA reports that 

will be developed by EAC. Additionally, through committees, these boards are to recruit, 

interview and recommend to EAC, candidates for the position of EAC Executive 

Director. Both boards function solely as advisory bodies and must comply fully with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

HAVA creatively and appropriately requires specific designation of members to 

each board to provide broad representation and a wide array of expertise and 

perspectives in to the deliberations of each group. Board members serve terms and can 

be reappointed as specified in HAVA. HAVA title II section 215 (f) establishes the 

boards as permanent committees and EAC is to provide necessary administrative 

support. 

EAC Board of Advisors 

Membership on the Board of Advisors shall include: two members each appointed 

by the National Governors Association (NGA); National Conference of State Legislatures 

(NCSL); National Association 0f Secretaries of State (NASS); National Association of 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

State Election Directors (NASED); National Association of Counties NACO); National 

Association of County Recorders, Election Administrators and Clerks (NACRAC); U.S. 

Conference of Mayors; Election Center; International Association of County Recorders, 

Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 

Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board. The other members include 

one representatives from each of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity 

and the Civil Rights Division; the director of the U.S. Department of Defense Federal 

Voting Assistance Program; 4 members representing professionals in the field of science 

and technology, one each appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader of the U.S. 

House of Representatives and the Majority and Minority leaders of the U.S. Senate; and 8 

members representing voter interests of whom 2 each are appointed by the Chairs and the 

Ranking Minority Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

June 17, 2004, Page 9 

Administration and the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

The Board of Advisors shall elect a Chair from among its members. 

EAC Standards Board 

The Standards Board shall consist of 110 members. Fifty-five members shall be 

State election officials selected by the chief State election official of each State. And, 55 

members shall be local election officials selected under a process supervised by the chief 

election official of the State. As you know Mr. Chairman, under HAVA, references to 

States include the District of Columbia and all territories. 

Regarding the make up of this membership, HAVA also mandates that the 2 

members who represent the same state may not be members of the same political party. 

The board shall select 9 of its members as an Executive Board and HAVA provides of 

whom not more than 5 may be State election officials; not more than 5 may be local 

election officials; and not more than 5 many be members of the same political party. 

HAVA further provides for lengths of terms for service on the Executive Board. 

REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS 

HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for States to follow in several 

key areas of election administration. HAVA provides funding to help States meet these 

new standards, replace outdated voting systems, and otherwise improve election 

administration. Under these provisions, EAC is required to: 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

„ Distribute Title II “requirements payments” to States and certain other grants to 

improve election administration. 

„ Serve as a clearinghouse for information on the administration of elections. 

„ Conduct studies on matters affecting election administration. 

„ Promulgate voluntary guidelines for election equipment, in consultation with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

„ Develop a national testing program for voting systems, in consultation with the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

„ Provide guidance to States on the administration of elections. 

Title I Payments – “Early Money” 

Congress has appropriated over $3 billion for HAVA implementation, most of 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 10 

which is for requirements payments to States. In FY 2003, while waiting for EAC to be 

established, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) was directed by Congress 

to distribute about $650 million in HAVA Title I “early money” to States to be used to 

improve the administration of elections ($325 million under HAVA Section 101) or to 

replace punchcard and lever voting equipment ($325 million under HAVA Section 

102). 

States were required to report to GSA their actual expenditures as of December 

31, 2003. The reports were due by January 21, 2004, and as of today, 47 states have 

submitted the required expenditure reports. GSA is continuing its efforts to obtain the 

remaining eight reports and now that EAC is operational, we will work with GSA to 

ensure that all required expenditure reports are obtained. 

In reviewing the reports that have been submitted, it is apparent that most of the 

States have not yet expended the majority of their Title I payments. Since these reports 

only cover a period ending last December, it is conceivable that a number of States may 

have made efforts to obligate and expend additional funds since the beginning of this 

year. GSA reporting requirements for Title I funds only required actual expenditures so 

we are not able to discern the specific activities conducted by States with the use of Title 

I funds. Therefore, EAC will request updated financial reports to include additional 

information. This will enable us to be better informed as to the use of the Title I funds, 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

which we can report to Congress and the general public. We will institute similar 

reporting requests for the Title II payments. 

Title II Requirements Payments 

EAC is now working with GSA to distribute $2.321 billion in Title II 

requirements payments to States for HAVA implementation. To be eligible for these 

payments, States had to submit written plans to EAC. All 55 State plans were published 

by EAC in the Federal Register on March 24, 2004. Initially, EAC was challenged to 

find sufficient funding to cover the estimated $800,000 cost of publishing State plans in 

the Federal Register. GSA assumed this responsibility, which enabled this process to 

move forward. 

Following a 45 day comment period, which ended on May 8, States have begun to 

self-certify that they are in compliance with HAVA. As of this week, EAC has notified 

GSA that 25 States have satisfied the eligibility requirements of HAVA section 253 and 

should receive their Title II payments. GSA is in the process of preparing these payments, 

which will result in the distribution of approximately $861 million. Appendix C contains 

a chart listing the 25 states and the payments each will receive. 

Two other States have self-certifications that are pending review of their 

Administrative Complaints Procedures by the Justice Department and we expect to 

continue receiving self-certifications from the remaining States during the next 

several weeks. 

EAC has also been working with the Office of Management and Budget, GSA 

and 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 11 

other federal agencies to establish the various administrative procedures and protocols 

regarding the disbursement, reporting and auditing of the payments. EAC has 

significant fiduciary responsibility to assure self-compliance and self-certification by 

the States. In FY05, EAC will be fully responsible for paying for all costs associated 

with publishing State plan updates in the Federal Register and administering the FY05 

requirements payments. 

The President’s FY05 budget includes a request for $40 million in requirements 

payments to States of the remaining $639 million that is authorized. Most States have 

developed their plans to implement HAVA based on their expectation of full funding. 

The FY05 budget request does not fully fund the authorized requirements payments. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

EAC anticipates that most states will submit revisions to their plans to adjust for the 

decrease in funds appropriated for requirements payments. 

CLEARINGHOUSE, RESOURCE and GRANT PROGRAMS 

HAVA requires EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse of information with 

respect to the administration of Federal elections. requires EAC to serve as a national 

clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information and the review of 

procedures relevant to the administration of federal elections. The research conducted 

by EAC to develop voting system standards and guidelines will provide a critical body 

of knowledge that will help EAC develop and implement several other of its HAVA 

mandated activities, including: 

„ Produce voluntary guidance on the implementation of HAVA Title III requirements 

(voting systems standards, computerized statewide voter registration lists, and public 

information on provisional voting, voter education, and for voters who register by 

mail). 

„ Maintain information on the experiences of States in implementing EAC guidelines for 

the procurement and use of voting equipment and on the general operation of voting 

systems. 

„ Conduct studies and other activities to promote the effective administration of federal 

elections. 

„ Administer grants for research on voting technology improvements and for pilot 

programs to test election equipment and technology. 

„Administer grant to the National Student and Parent Mock Election. „Develop and 

implement the Help America Vote College Program (described further on 

Page 15). 

„ Assume responsibilities previously assigned to the Federal Election Commission under 

Section 9(a) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a), 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 12 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

which includes providing States with information on their responsibilities under the 

law, developing and maintaining the National Mail Voter Registration Form, and 

reporting to Congress every two years on the impact of the law on the administration 

of federal elections. 

„ Make available the results of State reports on the combined number of absentee ballots 

transmitted to absent uniformed and overseas voters for each general election for 

federal office, and the combined number of such ballots returned and cast in the 

election. 

„ Disseminate to the public, on an ongoing basis, information on the activities carried out 

under HAVA. This will be done through the Internet, published reports, and other 

appropriate means. 

Basically, HAVA requires two types of research. One area of research is to 

inform the development of standards and guidance that we addressed earlier in this 

statement. 

THE HAVA TOOL KIT and 2004 BEST PRACTICES GUIDANCE 

As part of its Clearinghouse responsibilities, EAC is committed to gathering 

information regarding "best practices" and "lessons learned," and to disseminate this 

information to election administrators, advocates and other interested parties in a timely 

and informative manner. EAC believes there are many things that election 

administrators can do to increase the likelihood of the reliability of voting equipment 

and systems for the November 2004 elections, and decrease the likelihood of 

irregularity. EAC serves as a repository of useful information, which enables it to 

provide critical guidance and resources to election officials as they prepare for the 

upcoming General Election. 

EAC is developing a HAVA Tool Kit that will offer guidance to election 

officials. The first set of guidance will be published in early July so that they can be of 

practical use in time for the November elections. Then, as EAC progresses in its work, 

the tool kit will evolve in 2005 to include guidelines, guidance, resource manuals and 

other publications that will be helpful over the long run to election administrators, 

elected officials, advocates, scientists, academics, the media and other parties interested 

in the administration and integrity of our election systems and processes. 

Best Practices Guidance for November 2004 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

EAC recognizes that there are many aspects of election systems and practices that 

have nothing to do with how voting machines function. These areas of election 

administration, which are covered in HAVA, also need examination and guidance. Two 

glaring examples are poll worker recruitment and training, which are major challenges 

that 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 13 

confront most election officials. Also important and to be included in the HAVA tool 

kit will be information and guidance on voter registration requirements; provisional 

ballots; absentee ballots, especially for our troops and other American citizens who 

work outside of the United States; and other aspects of election administration and 

voter education. 

Pursuant to HAVA section 252, EAC will soon issue to Congress a report on 

“Best Practices for Facilitating Voting by U.S. Citizens covered by the Uniformed and 

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,” which is being developed in consultation with 

the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) of the U.S. Department of Defense. 

However, Mr. Chairman, we know that in the midst of the many HAVA 

mandates that need our attention, the one that cries out for immediate attention is the 

growing concern about the use, reliability, accessibility and security of the various 

voting systems that will be administered in 2004. As noted earlier, we believe there are 

things that the EAC and election administrators can do now to increase the likelihood of 

the reliability of voting equipment and systems for the November 2004 elections, and 

decrease the likelihood of irregularity. To that end, EAC will publish Best Practices 

guidance, the first of which will be available and widely distributed in early July. This 

guidance will be critical components of the HAVA Tool Kit and is based on testimony 

we received at our May 5 and June 3 hearings, and thoughtful input from election 

officials, advocates, academics, vendors and other experts from across the country. 

Poll Worker Recruitment and Training 

Included in the Best Practices that we will issue this summer will be guidance 

on the recruitment and training of poll workers. Most Americans do not realize what a 

huge undertaking is involved in the recruitment and training of poll workers who staff 

Election Day services. Mr. Chairman, the number of poll workers that must be recruited 

and trained for each election ranges from about 142 in East Hartford, Connecticut; to 

364 in Belmont County, Ohio; to 6,500 in Philadelphia; to over 13,000 in the city of 

Chicago; to almost 25,000 in Los Angeles County. 

Jurisdictions pay relatively small stipends to poll workers from $25 to $125 for 

what averages to be a 14-our day. Poll workers with the most experience are an aging 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

group and election administrators are challenged to find the numbers of workers they 

need. To assist in this effort, EAC is considering a National Poll Worker Initiative. We 

are talking with election administrators, volunteer center directors, corporate executives, 

national nonprofit leaders and government agency directors to plan this endeavor, which 

we hope to be able to announce in July 2004. 

Integral to this initiative is the Help America Voter College Program currently 

being developed by EAC. Recently, a California-based think tank2 released polling data 

showing that only 35 percent of surveyed college students feel that voting in a 

Presidential 

2 This study was commissioned by the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California 

State University Monterey Bay. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 14 

election is a way to bring about change in society. This was a significant drop from 2001, 

when some 47 percent of college students said their votes could bring societal change. 

Under Title V of HAVA, the EAC is charged with developing a program to be known as 

the “Help America Vote College Program.” The purpose of this program is to encourage 

college students to act as nonpartisan poll workers during elections and to encourage 

State and local governments to use the services of the students participating in this 

program. 

HAVA requires that the Help America Vote College Program be developed by the 

EAC not later than one year after the appointment of the four EAC commissioners. 

Specifically, the EAC is to “...develop material, sponsor seminars and workshops, 

engage in advertising targeting students, make grants and take such other action as it 

considers appropriate...” to implement this program. Accordingly, the EAC is working 

now to develop this program, and we will have at least a modified – or pilot program – in 

place for the upcoming November 2 General Election. 

Several local election jurisdictions already have programs in place that could 

serve as Best Practice models. For example, the Los Angeles County Registrar has been 

working in for the past several years with a number of local community colleges, most 

notably the Los Angeles County Community College System, to recruit and train 

volunteer student poll workers. This program is proving successful in L.A. County and 

was recently expanded. Likewise, San Francisco and Alameda counties have also been 

successful in utilizing college and high school students as poll workers. And similarly in 

New York, the CUNY system successfully implemented a poll worker initiative which 

organized and trained student poll workers at almost twenty colleges and universities 

across New York City. EAC continues to identify other currently existing programs that 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

can serve as Best Practice models and will facilitate partnerships with colleges and 

election jurisdictions. 

Of course, guidance and voluntary guidelines are just that, guidance and 

guidelines to election administrators and others who want to know what can be done to 

improve our election systems and processes. Therefore, all of EAC’s Best Practices 

guidance will be practical, user friendly, easy for elected officials to adopt as they see 

appropriate for their jurisdictions, and easy to understand by advocates and other 

stakeholders. And the practical ideas of the guidance will promote the highest possible 

standards in the administration of elections and management of voting system security. 

Before being published, the guidance will be reviewed by the 37-member EAC 

Board of Advisors and 110-member Standards Board for comment when they meet for 

the first time at the end of this month. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman, if there is one issue on which Americans have overwhelming 

agreement, it is that the right to vote may be our most fundamental right. The Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 established a new role for the Federal government in 

Federal elections and established the EAC to manage that involvement. We, the EAC 

Commissioners, are committed to implementing the strict letter of the law, functioning 

as responsible fiduciaries to protect our Federal investment of funds and creating 

standards 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 15 

that provide voters with the confidence that our elections are administered with the 

highest level of integrity possible. If given the appropriate resources, the EAC will 

become the asset to our democracy that HAVA envisioned. 

This concludes our formal statement and we are prepared to answer any 

questions that you and members of the Committee might have for us today. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 16 

Appendix A - Commissioner Biographies3 

DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., Chairman 

Appointed to an initial four year term, Dr. DeForest B. Soaries, Jr. was elected Chairman of the 

Election Assistance Commission at the agency’s first public meeting on March 23, 2004. 

In February 2003, Dr. Soaries was appointed by President Bush to serve as a public director of 

the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. He was a member of the affordable housing 

committee of the bank. 

From January 12, 1999 to January 15, 2002, Dr. Soaries served as New Jersey's 30th Secretary 

of State. Appointed by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman, he managed one of the 

premier departments of State government and served as a senior advisor to the governor on 

issues that transcended traditional departmental lines. 

Dr. Soaries is also the Senior Pastor of the 7,000 member First Baptist Church of Lincoln 

Gardens in Somerset, New Jersey. A pioneer of faith-based community development, Dr. 

Soaries has led First Baptist in the construction of a new $17 million church complex and the 

formation of many not-for-profit entities to serve the community surrounding the church. 

Highlights of Dr. Soaries’ work include: recruiting families to become foster parents to 300 

abandoned babies; helping 45 children find adoptive parents; constructing 96 new homes for low 

and moderate income residents to own; creating the first faith-based Cisco Technology Academy 

in the country; operating the Central New Jersey STRIVE program for job readiness; serving 

hundreds of youth in an after school center and homework club; forming a youth entrepreneurship 

program and redeveloping commercial real estate. 

Dr. Soaries earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Fordham University; a Master of Divinity 

Degree from Princeton Theological Seminary; and a Doctor of Ministry Degree from United 

Theological Seminary. He has also received six honorary Doctorate degrees from institutions of 

higher learning. Additionally, Dr. Soaries has taught courses at Princeton Theological 

Seminary, Drew University Theological School, Kean University and Mercer County College. 

Dr. Soaries has received numerous awards for his leadership and community service. He was 

recently recognized by both houses of the New Jersey Legislature for his religious and 

community leadership. 

Dr. Soaries is married to Margaret Donna Soaries and is the father of twin sons, Malcolm 

and Martin. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

3

 The four EAC commissioners were confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 2003, and appointed by the 

President on December 13, 2003. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 17 

Gracia M. Hillman, Vice Chair 

Appointed to an initial two-year term, Gracia M. Hillman was elected Vice Chair of the Election 

Assistance Commission at the agency’s first public meeting on March 23, 2004. 

Throughout her career, Commissioner Hillman has effectively handled both domestic and 

international issues. Her areas of expertise include nonprofit management, public policy 

and program development, political services, the interests and rights of women and 

minorities, community affairs and election related matters, including voting rights. 

She has traveled extensively throughout the United States meeting with national and local 

groups and businesses; speaking at conferences, conventions and other public forums; and 

conducting a variety of training and development seminars. Through her international work, 

Commissioner Hillman traveled in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Europe. She conducted 

nonpartisan political training in Haiti and Kenya, and participated in UN sponsored conferences 

in Vienna, Beijing and at the United Nations in New York. 

Prior to 2003, Ms. Hillman served as President and CEO of WorldSpace Foundation, a nonprofit 

organization that uses cutting edge digital satellite technology to deliver audio and multimedia 

education programs to Africa and Asia. Ms. Hillman also served the U.S. Department of State as 

its first Senior Coordinator for International Women’s Issues where she was responsible for 

developing agency-wide strategies to ensure that U.S. foreign policy promoted and protected 

women’s rights. She was the State Department’s principal liaison with domestic 

nongovernmental organizations that are concerned with international women’s rights and the 

role of women in development. In 1995, Ms. Hillman was a member of the official U.S. 

delegation to the United Nation’s Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing. 

Her work experience includes having served as Executive Director of the League of Women 

Voters of the U.S., the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the National Coalition on 

Black Voter Participation, which sponsored the popular nonpartisan grassroots program, 

Operation Big Vote. She also held positions as Executive Consultant to the Council on 

Foundations and Coordinator of the Voter Law Policy Project for the Joint Center for Political 

and Economic Studies. 

Throughout the 1980's, Ms. Hillman championed many nonpartisan and bi-partisan efforts to 

ensure open access to the voting process for all citizens and the continued voting rights of 

minority Americans, including her work on the historic 25 year extension of the national Voting 

Rights Act. Her political experiences include paid and volunteer work on numerous local, statewide and national campaigns, including having served as a Senior Advisor with responsibility for 

Congressional and constituent relations for the 1988 Dukakis for President Campaign. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

Ms. Hillman began her long time commitment to public service and the nonprofit sector in 1970, 

when she worked for a community action program in her home state of Massachusetts. She also 

held management positions in Massachusetts State government. She has served on the boards 

and advisory committees of numerous local and national organizations concerned with public 

service, citizen participation and the development of public policy. Ms. Hillman has one son and 

currently resides in Washington, DC. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 18 

Paul S. DeGregorio, Commissioner 

Appointed to an initial two-year term, Paul D. DeGregorio served as the Executive Vice President 

and Chief Operating Officer of the of the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), a 

leading institution involved in the promotion of democracy world-wide, where he was responsible 

for the day-to-day operation of this non-profit with over 400 employees in 23 countries. He also 

represented IFES at many domestic and international venues focused on democracy-building. 

DeGregorio has provided technical assistance in election administration in many countries 

including: Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, Albania, Macedonia, BosniaHerzegovina, China, Slovakia, Georgia, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, the 

Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Japan. At IFES, DeGregorio also provided 

leadership on U.S. election reform initiatives and led a team that supplied technical advice in 

Florida and Missouri for the November 2002 election. 

From 1985 to 1993, DeGregorio served as chief administrator of the election authority of 

Missouri’s largest county. During his tenure as Director of Elections of St. Louis County, a 

jurisdiction of one million people, he instituted major improvements in voter registration, 

training, disability access, counting and management procedures. He was successful in 

prosecuting voter fraud and in drafting legislation to improve the electoral process and was 

widely-recognized for his achievements. 

In 2001 he was appointed by Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt to serve as the Co-Chair of 

the Missouri Election Reform Commission. Working with the commission and Secretary Blunt, 

DeGregorio helped to craft an important election reform law which was passed by the Missouri 

General Assembly in 2002. A member of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, and 

Election Officials (IACREOT) since 1986, during his tenure as Chairman of the Education and 

Training Committee DeGregorio was credited with initiating the University of Missouri 

Chancellor’s Certificate in Public Administration program for IACREOT members. 

Serving needs in higher education was important in DeGregorio’s career as he served for 8 years 

as Director of Outreach Development for the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where he initiated 

and had oversight for four off-site campuses that served nearly 4000 students. He also served as a 

Research Associate with the University’s Center for International Studies. DeGregorio was a 

Special Assistant in President Ronald Reagan’s administration and served as an assistant to John 

Ashcroft during his first term as Missouri Attorney General. 

A native of St. Louis, Missouri, DeGregorio, 51, received his degree in Political Science from 

the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He is married to Kerry DeGregorio, who is Director of 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

Constituent Services for Missouri Congressman Todd Akin. The DeGregorio’s are the proud 

parents of Katie, Annie, Debbie and Emily. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 19 

Ray Martinez III, Commissioner 

Appointed to an initial four year term, Ray Martinez III was a practicing attorney in Austin, 

Texas, focusing primarily on regulatory and administrative law matters, as well as 

government affairs representation of county governments to the Texas Legislature. 

Concurrent with his law practice, Martinez also served as executive director and legal counsel 

of the Every Texan Foundation, a non-partisan voter registration and education effort 

dedicated to increasing voter participation in Texas. 

Mr. Martinez began his law practice after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President for 

Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House. In this position, Martinez was responsible for 

assisting former President Bill Clinton with various policy issues involving the nation’s 

governors and other statewide elected officials. Before serving as Deputy Assistant to the 

President, Martinez was Regional Director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services in Dallas, where he served as the Department’s principal liaison with federal, State and 

local officials in a five-state region. 

From 1995 through the end of President Clinton’s first term, Martinez served in the White 

House as a Special Assistant to the President, frequently traveling with the President and 

assisting with various policy matters affecting a 13-state Western region of the country. Mr. 

Martinez’ Federal government service began in 1993 when he was appointed as White House 

Liaison to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to his service in the 

Federal government, Martinez worked as a legislative liaison for the Texas Attorney General’s 

office, and as the legislative director for State Representative Sylvester Turner of Houston. 

A native of Alice, Texas, Martinez, 39, received his law degree from the University of 

Houston Law Center and his bachelor’s degree from Southwestern University. He currently 

resides in Arlington, Virginia with his wife, Beth Stanley Martinez, a clinical social worker, 

and their two children. 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 20 

Appendix B - Help America Vote Act of 2002 Authorizations & Appropriations 

Program Amounts 

Authorized 

Amounts 

Appropriated 

Amounts 

Disbursed 

Administering 

Agency 

Title I – Payments to States 

for: •Election 

Administration 

Improvement (Section 101) 

•Punchcard and Lever 

Machine Replacement 

(Section 102) Minimum 

Aggregate Amount 

Guaranteed to Each State 

Minimum Aggregate 

Amount Guaranteed to Each 

Territory (Amounts 

unobligated as of September 

2003 transferred to EAC for 

Requirements Payments) 

$650 million, as 

follows: $325 

million $325 

million $5 

million $1 

million 

$650 million in 

FY03, as follows: 

$325 million $325 

million (GSA was 

permitted to take 

$500,000 of the 

total for 

administrative 

expenses) 

$650 million in 

FY03, as 

follows: 

$349,182,262 

$300,317,738 

(GSA took 

$500,000 of the 

total for 

administrative 

expenses) 

General Services 

Administration 

Title II –Payments to States 

to meet Act’s Requirements 

(including voting equipment 

procurement, training poll 

workers, providing voter 

education, and improving 

administration of elections – 

Section 257(a)) Minimum 

Payment to States Minimum 

Payment to Territories 

$3 billion, as 

follows: $1.4 

billion-FY03 $1 

billion-FY04 

$600 millionFY05 .5% of 

amount 

appropriated .1% 

of amount 

appropriated4 

$830 millionFY035 

$1,489,360,620- 

FY046 

$0 FY03 

Election 

Assistance 

Commission 

4

 Subsequent appropriations legislation limited the Territories to receiving no more than the minimum 

amount. 

5

 Funds not disbursed remain available regardless of fiscal year, per Section 257(b). 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

6

 Of the $1.5 billion appropriated, $1.5 million is for the two Help America Vote student programs, 

$200,000 is for the National Student/Parent Mock Election, and $100,000 is for GSA administrative 

expenses. A subsequent federal rescission affecting FY04 funds reduced the requirements payments by 

$8,839,380. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 21 

Program Amounts 

Authorized 

Amounts 

Appropriated 

Amounts 

Disbursed 

Administering 

Agency 

Title II – Voting Technology 

Improvement Research 

Grants (Section 273) 

$20 millionFY03 $0 $0 

Election Assistance 

Commission, in 

consultation with 

NIST 

Title II – Grants for Pilot 

Programs to Test New 

Voting Systems (Section 

283) 

$10 millionFY03 $0 $0 

Election Assistance 

Commission, in 

consultation with 

NIST 

Title II – Election Assistance 

Commission (Operating 

Fund – Section 210) 

Maximum: $10 

million-FY03 

$10 millionFY04 $10 

million-FY05 

$2 million-FY03* 

$1.2 

million+$800,000 

for OEA -FY04* 

$0 in FY03 Election Assistance 

Commission 

Title II –Payments to States 

and Units of Local 

Government to Improve 

Access to Individuals with 

Disabilities (Section 264) 

$100 million, as 

follows: $50 

million-FY03 

$25 millionFY04 $25 

million-FY05 $13 million-FY03 

$10 million-FY04 

$13 millionFY03 Health and Human 

Services 

Title II – Payments to State 

Protection and Advocacy 

Systems To Ensure Full 

Participation of Disabled 

Individuals in Electoral 

Process (Section 292) 

Minimum Payments 

$40 million, as 

follows: $10 

million-FY03 

$10 millionFY04 $10 

million-FY05 

$10 millionFY06 $105,000 

($70,000 and 

$35,000) 

$2 million-FY03 $5 

million-FY04 

$2 millionFY03 Health and Human 

Services 

* These amounts cannot be carried over for use in subsequent fiscal years. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 22 
Statement of U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration 

Program Amounts 

Authorized 

Amounts 

Appropriated 

Amounts 

Disbursed 

Administering 

Agency 

Title II – Grants to the 

National Student and Parent 

Mock Election Organization 

(Section 296) 

$200,000-FY03 

Such sums as 

may be 

necessary for 

each of the 

succeeding 6 

fiscal years 

$0-FY03 

$200,000-FY04* $0 FY03 Election Assistance Commission 

Title V – The Help America 

Vote College Program 

(Section 503) 

$5 million-FY03 

Such sums as 

may be 

necessary for 

each succeeding 

fiscal year 

$1.5 millionFY03* $750,000-

FY04* 

$0 FY03 Election Assistance 

Commission 

Title VI – Help America Vote 

Foundation (High School) 

(Section 601) 

$5 million-FY03 

Such sums as 

may be 

necessary for 

each succeeding 

fiscal year 

$1.5 millionFY03* $750,000-

FY04* 

$0 FY03 Help America Vote 

Foundation 

* These amounts cannot be carried over for use in subsequent fiscal years. A subsequent federal rescission 

affecting FY04 funds reduced the grants to the National Student Parent Mock Election by $1,180 and the 

funds for the Help America Vote College Program and the Help America Vote Foundation each by $4,425. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 23 

Appendix C – Title II Requirements Payments to States 

*Payments to be distributed by GSA in June 2004. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Presentation to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration June 17, 2004, Page 24