U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
1225 New York Ave. NW — Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

EAC Statement Regarding
Research and Contracting Policies

Commission to Review Internal Procedures

For Immediate Release Contact: Jeannie Layson
April 11, 2007 Bryan Whitener
(202) 566-3100

WASHINGTON - The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) directs the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource by, among other things,
conducting studies with the goal of improving the administration of federal elections. To fulfill this
mandate, the EAC has entered into contracts with a variety of persons and entities. Reports adopted by
the EAC, a bipartisan federal entity, are likely to be cited as authoritative in public discourse. Prior to
the EAC's adopting a report submitted by a contractor, the EAC has the responsibility to ensure its
accuracy and to verify that conclusions are supported by the underlying research.

The Commission takes input and constructive criticism from Congress and the public very seriously.
We will take a hard look at the way we do business. Specifically, we will examine both the manner in
which we have awarded contracts and our decision-making process regarding the release of research and
reports. The EAC takes its mandates very seriously, and we will continue to move forward in a
bipartisan way to improve the way America votes.

EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by HAVA. It is charged with administering
payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, implementing election
administration improvements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, accrediting voting system
test laboratories and certifying voting equipment and serving as a national clearinghouse and resource
of information regarding election administration. The four EAC commissioners are Donetta Davidson,
chair; Rosemary Rodriguez, Caroline Hunter and Gracia Hillman.

HHH


04/13/2007 09:03 FAX

!

Wnited States Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

April 12, 2007

The Honorable Donetta Davidson
Chairman

USS. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Commissioner Davidson:

We are writing to seek a response to very troubling news reports that
included allegations that the Commission may have altered or delayed
release of two taxpayer-funded studies of election issues for political

purposes.

While the Commission is within its rights to decide what guidance it
issues to election officials, it is critical that its actions are not perceived as
politically motivated and it is imperative that you provide full
documentation about the Commission’s proceedings on these matters.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that a bipartisan team of
election law experts hired by the Commission to research voter fraud in
federal elections found that there was little such fraud around the nation, but
the Commission revised the report to say that the pervasiveness of voter
fraud was still open to debate.

On Monday, Roll Call reported that the Commission two weeks ago
rejected the findings of a report, prepared as part of a $560,000 contract with
Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute and Ohio State University’s Moritz
College of Law. That report found that voter identification Jaws may reduce
election turnout, especially by minorities.

@oo2z


CommurTEe On THE JUDICIARY

© Cam — SuscommitTee ON IMMIGRATION,
‘Fimzensir, ReFuaeEs, BORDER SECURITY, AND
INTERNATIONAL. LAW

= SuacoMMIrTeE ON Counrs, THE INTERNET, AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

© SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND

UNETRATIVE LAW

Commmurren ON HOMELAND SECURITY

* Suacommnrvée ON BORDER, MARITIME AND GLOaAL,

CounTERTERRORISM
* Suscommerrre ow Emenaia THREATE,

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, BC 20515-0516

CYAERSECURITY, AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Committee ON House AOMINISTRATION
© Cyain — Suacommrtae ON ELECTIONS

ZOE LOFGREN

Coain, CaLieonnia DEMOCRATIC CONGAFASIONAL 16TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

Drteaarion

April 12, 2007

Chairwoman Donetta Davidson

United States Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Chairwoman Davidson:

wus
35 Norra Finat STREET

(408)

(406) 271-8713 (Fax)

10? CANNON House Orries BumLora
WasninaTon, DG 20815

{202} 226-3072

(202) 226-2936 {Fax}

ou house. anviloforen

Co-Cuain, CoNGREasIONAL HazanDs CAUCUS

Co-CHAIR, BIPARTISAN CONGAERSIONAL
Rervaee Caucus

Co-Ciain, CONGRESSIONAL ViETNAM CAUCUS

As Chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, which has
oversight over the Election Assistance Commission, I was alarmed at what appears to be an emerging
pattern by the EAC to hold off on publicly releasing reports as well as modifying reports that are
released, Two recent instances have brought to light the increased politicalization of the EAC and this

lack of transparency.

First, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government released
a draft version of an EAC report on voter fraud and intimidation that shows significant changes were
made to the findings of outside experts before the final report was released. The EAC released report
“Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study” does not accurately

reflect the research in the original report “Voting Fraud and Voter Intimidation.”

Second, in addition to this report on voter fraud and intimidation, the EAC recently released a report by
‘The Eagleton institute of Politics at Rutgers University on voter identification. Again, the EAC did not
endorse the report, citing methodological concerns, and only released it after pressure from Congress.

The BAC is charged with conducting nonpartisan research and to advise policy makers. How are we to
rely on advice if instead of full and accurate reporting, we are provided an inaccurate modified version
which negates clear evidence to the contrary in the original research? I am outraged that the election

process is being threatened by a lack of transparency and limited discussion.

Jn order to preempt any further problems with the release of reports from the EAC, I request all
versions of the Absentee Ballot report and the Military and Overseas report, as well as any other
overdue reports, including supporting documents and research, be provided to my office by close of
business Monday, April 16, 2007. These reports are overdue and I want to ensure that the delay is no

way related to what appears to be an ongoing problem of politcalization of the EAC.

cerely,

Lots
Member of Cc

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER



04/13/2007 09:03 FAX

We request information and documentation from the Commission that

answer the following questions:

COMMISSION’S OVERSIGHT ON EAGLETON CONTRACT TO
PERFORM A STUDY ON VOTER IDENTIFICATION

1.

Did the Commissioners or Commission senior staff receive any
outside communication or pressure to change or not release the
entire draft report or portions of the draft language on the voter
fraud report? If so, who made those requests?

Would you please provide a copy of the approved Request For
Proposals, as well as any contract modifications that were agreed
to between the Commission and Eagleton Institute and
subcontractors?

Can you provide the names and qualifications of Election
Assistance Commission staff that worked on the Eagleton Institute
project?

Please indicate how many project meetings occurred during the
term of the Eagleton contract, including in-person meetings,
conference calls regarding the status of the report, and any meeting
where Commissioners were present for at least part of the meeting.
Please provide copies of any minutes from those meetings.

Please identify the names and affiliations of members of the Peer
Review group or groups that examined the Eagleton Institute
drafts. Please also indicate the dates upon which any such review
of the Eagleton research was conducted, and the specific concerns
or complaints that were raised by members of the Peer Review
group as to either the analysis or statistical methodology, if any.
Please provide copies of any minutes from those meetings.

If certain members of the Peer Review groups had concerns with
the data or methodology of the Eagleton study, was that
information communicated to Eagleton, and were any changes
made to the study based on Peer Review group concerns with
methodology or data?

Who were the individuals (and what were their academic
qualifications) that advised the Commission that the data,
methodology, or the results of the Eagleton Contract were so
flawed that the Commission should reject the report? At what point
did the Commission receive input from those individuals?

@ooa



04/13/2007 09:03 FAX @oos

Commissioner Davidson -2- April 12, 2007

It is imperative that the Commission’s actions and deliberations are
unbiased, free from political influence and transparent. While the
Commission does not have to agree with the experts who perform its
research, it should make the research available unfettered and unfiltered.

Attached are a series of questions, we would like the Commission to
address. We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,
- Dk Buln
+ |e Richard J. Durbin
Chairman
Committee on Rules Subcommittee on Financial
and Administration Services and General
Government

Committee on Appropriations



04/13/2007 09:03 FAX

10.

Who drafted the Commission sumunary (released in December,
2006) of the Voter Fraud/Intimidation report, and what were their
credentials and involvement in the original research process?
Were there instructions or guidance given from Commissioners or
senior staff as to what portions of the research should be
emphasized? Who at the Commission reviewed the summarized
report? Since the contracted experts are referred to in the
Commission’s released report, were the contractors allowed a
chance to review or edit that Commission’s final report that was
released in December, 2006?

Please provide copies of any electronic or written communications
between Commission employees that relate to the editing of the
Voter Fraud/Intimidation report.

Please explain what Mr. Job Serebrov was referring to in his email
referenced in the New York Times article of April 11, 2007. Please
provide any documents in the Commission’s possession where
employees or contracted experts discussed pressure, political
sensitivities, or the failure of the Commission to adopt the Voter
Fraud/Intimidation report from March 1, 2006 to present.

While we realize that the Commission voted to release its summary
report in December 2006, was there a public vote taken to reject
the Draft Voter Fraud/Intimidation report? Such a monumental
decision to reject the contract experts’ work is a policy decision,
and one that should be done in public. When was the decision
made to reject the original report, and what notice was provided to
the public that the Commission would reject that report?

Prior to the Draft Voter Fraud/Intimidation report's release, had.
other organizations requested a copy of that original report? Please
include copies of your responses to those organizations, if any.
Had any States requested that the Commission or staff provide
guidance related to voter identification requirements in the Help
America Vote Act, or identification requirements generally?
Please provide those requests, and any responses from the
Commission.

Please indicate what steps the Commission is taking to ensure that
political considerations do not impact the agency’s research and
that decisions are handled in a public and transparent manner.

Moos


U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
1225 New York Ave. NW — Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005

EAC Requests Review of Voter ID, Vote Fraud and
Voter Intimidation Research Projects

For Immediate Release Contact: Jeannie Layson
April 16, 2007 Bryan Whitener
(202) 566-3100

WASHINGTON - U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Chair Donetta Davidson today issued a
formal request to the commission’s inspector general to conduct a review of the commission’s contracting
procedures, including a review of two recent projects focusing on voter identification and vote fraud and
voter intimidation. The chair’s memo to the inspector general is attached.

“The actions taken by the commission regarding these research projects have been challenged, and the
commissioners and I agree that it is appropriate and necessary to ask the inspector general to review this
matter,” said EAC Chair Davidson.

Chair Davidson has requested that the inspector general specifically review the circumstances surrounding
the issuance and management of the voter identification research project and the vote fraud and voter
intimidation research project.

EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by HAVA. It is charged with administering payments
to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, implementing election administration
improvements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, accrediting voting system test laboratories and
certifying voting equipment and serving as a national clearinghouse and resource of information regarding
election administration. The four EAC commissioners are Donetta Davidson, chair; Rosemary E.
Rodriguez, Caroline Hunter and Gracia Hillman.

HEE


Page 1 of 2

Printable Version

Congressman José E. Serrano .
Representing the Sixteenth District of New York MEDIA CONTACT:

FOR IMMEDIATE Philip Schmidt (202)
RELEASE: PRESS RELEASE 225-4361
Apr 11, 2007

SERRANO, HINCHEY URGE NON-
PARTISANSHIP, GREATER TRANSPARENCY AT
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Washington, DC — April 11, 2007 — Today, Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) and José E.
Serrano (NY-16) urged the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to act with greater transparency
and without partisanship. The comments from the congressmen came as the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government released a draft version of an EAC
report on voter fraud and intimidation that shows significant changes were made to the findings of
outside experts before the final report was released.

“The EAC has an obligation to be forthright with the American people and operate transparently and
in a non-partisan manner,” said Congressman Hinchey, who requested the draft
report from EAC Commissioner Donetta L. Davidson during a subcommittee
hearing last month. “The draft report was commissioned with taxpayer dollars upon a mandate
from Congress so that we could learn more about voter fraud and intimidation. The need for this
report is even more clear when we see the way in which the Bush administration is carrying out the
electoral process and how this system is sliding towards corruption In hiding a draft report from the
public that is significantly different from the final version, the EAC has created a lot more questions
than it is has answered while stunting debate on the issue. In order for our democracy to function
properly it is essential that our elections are free of any corruption and that includes ensuring that
the EAC does not work to benefit one political party over the other. To achieve that goal we must
have all the facts and opinions on the table, not just some of them, The EAC must never limit
discussion and debate.”

“The EAC is charged with helping to ensure our elections are trustworthy and administered fairly,”
said Congressman Serrano, who is Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee
that oversees the EAC budget. “I’m concerned if changes were made to the report on voter
fraud because of partisan bias rather than impartial analysis. When you read the draft report side-
by-side with the final version, it is clear that important conclusions of the experts who wrote the
draft report were excluded from the final product. Among the excluded information is an analysis
that undermines the notion that voter fraud is rampant.

“I am concerned that the EAC did not publicly release the taxpayer-funded draft report, and I worry
that political considerations may have played a role. We cannot have a politicized EAC, or one that
yields to outside pressure. Our democracy, and the American people’s faith in it, is far more
important than any short-term political advantage.”

http://serrano.house.gov/PressR elease.aspx?NewsID=1 408 4/13/2007


Congressman Maurice Hinchey (NY22) :: Press Release :: Hinchey, Serrano Urge Non-P... Page 1 of 1

For Immediate Release

April 11, 2007

Hinchey, Serrano Urge Non-Partisanship,
Greater Transparency at Election Assistance Commission

Washington, DC - Today, Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) and José E. Serrano (NY-
16) urged the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to act with greater transparency and
without partisanship. The comments from the congressmen came as the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government released a draft
version of an EAC report on voter fraud and intimidation that shows significant changes were
made to the findings of outside experts before the final report was released.

“The EAC has an obligation to be forthright with the American people and operate
transparently and in a non-partisan manner,” said Congressman Hinchey, who requested the
draft report from EAC Commissioner Donetta L. Davidson during a subcommittee hearing last
month. “The draft report was commissioned with taxpayer dollars upon a mandate from
Congress so that we could learn more about voter fraud and intimidation. The need for this
report is even more clear when we see the way in which the Bush administration is carrying
out the electoral process and how this system is sliding towards corruption In hiding a draft
report from the public that is significantly different from the final version, the EAC has created
a lot more questions than it is has answered while stunting debate on the issue. In order for
our democracy to function properly it is essential that our elections are free of any corruption
and that includes ensuring that the EAC does not work to benefit one political party over the
other. To achieve that goal we must have all the facts and opinions on the table, not just some
of them. The EAC must never limit discussion and debate.”

“The EAC is charged with helping to ensure our elections are trustworthy and administered
fairly,” said Congressman Serrano, who is Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee that
oversees the EAC budget. “I’m concerned if changes were made to the report on voter fraud
because of partisan bias rather than impartial analysis. When you read the draft report side-
by-side with the final version, it is clear that important conclusions of the experts who wrote
the draft report were excluded from the final product. Among the excluded information is an
analysis that undermines the notion that voter fraud is rampant.

“I am concerned that the EAC did not publicly release the taxpayer-funded draft report, and I
worry that political considerations may have played a role. We cannot have a politicized EAC,
or one that yields to outside pressure. Our democracy, and the American people’s faith in it, is
far more important than any short-term political advantage.”

The draft report was written by outside experts under contract with the EAC. The final report
was entitled “Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study” and
was issued on December 7, 2006.

The EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by the 2002 Help America Vote Act
in order to disburse funds to the states for the purchase of new voting systems, certify voting
technologies, develop guidelines and serve as an information resource for election
administration.

http://www. house. gow/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/041107EACReport.html 4/13/2007



04/13/2007 09:03 FAX

10.

The Coninission previewed its research on the Eagleton Institute's
study on Provisional Voting at its May 2006 Advisory Board
meetings—why was the Voter Identification Draft Study not
discussed at that time? What is the status of the Provisional Voting
report?

In rejecting the Eagleton report, the Commission indicated
concerns that there was only one year’s worth of data. Given that
this was the first year that Commission had studied the results,
isn’t “one year” what was originally contemplated in the Eagleton
contract? Isn’t the reason for having a major research institute
conduct this study is so they can draw initial assessments from that
data—even though that data can be augmented in future years?
Because of the rejected report, will the Commission start anew for
research in the 2008 elections?

What was the final, total cost of the Eagleton contract, and what
was produced or released by that Commission as a result of that
contract?

COMMISSION'S OVERSIGHT OVER VOTER
FRAUD/INTIMIDATION STUDY

1.

Did the Commissioners or Commission senior staff receive any
outside communication or pressure to change or not release the
entire draft report or portions of the draft language on the voter
fraud report? If so, who made those requests?

Given the bipartisan nature of the Working Group that guided the
Voter Fraud/Intimidation report, and the bipartisan nature of the
contracted experts who uniformly support the results of this report,
what concerns lead the Commission to determine the report should
not be released?

If there were points in the report that the Commission objected to,
were there attempts to work with the contractors to deal with
specific concems? If there were such attempts, please describe
them.

@oos


11. Staff and/or Commissioner collaboration with political entities or other federal
agencies regarding the voter identification project.

12. Circumstances surrounding Commission deliberation whether to adopt a final
voter identification report.

For your information, I have attached statements and related correspondence from

Members of Congress, and a statement issued by the Commission regarding the criticism.

It is our hope that your findings will instruct us how to move forward in a more efficient,
effective and transparent manner. The Commission takes its mandates under HAVA very
seriously, and this small Commission has an enormous amount of work to conduct,
including testing and certifying voting equipment, providing guidance and assistance to
election officials, and auditing the proper use of the $3.1 billion that was distributed
under HAVA.

We look forward to your findings so that we may take the actions necessary to improve
the way we conceive research projects, manage research contracts, and make decisions
regarding the final release of data provided to the Commission from a third party.



unanimously not to adopt the report, citing concerns with its methodology, but voted to
release all of the data provided by the Contractor.

The vote fraud and voter intimidation research was conducted by Tova Wang and Job
Serebrov (“Consultants”). The contracts, awarded in September 2005, issued to these
Consultants tasked them with defining the terms vote fraud and voter intimidation and
providing recommendations how to conduct extensive research in the future on these
topics. The contract stated that the Consultants were responsible for “creating a report
summarizing the findings of this preliminary research effort and Working Group
deliberations. This report should include any recommendations for future EAC research
resulting from this effort.”

Review Request

The actions taken by the Commission regarding both the voter identification and the vote
fraud and voter intimidation research projects have been challenged. Specifically,
Members of Congress, the media, and the public have suggested that political motivations
may have been part of the Commission’s decision making process regarding these two
projects. Also, the Commission has been criticized for the amount of taxpayer dollars that
were spent on these two projects, as well as how efficiently these projects were managed.

The Commission takes these allegations very seriously, and we request that you fully
review the following issues and provide the Commission and the Congress with a report
of your findings as soon as possible. The Commission stands ready to assist you in these
efforts and will provide whatever information, including memos, emails and other
documents you will need. Cooperating with your review will be the staff’s top priority.

1. Current Commission policy regarding awarding and managing research contracts.

2. Issuance and management of the vote fraud and voter intimidation contract.

3. Circumstances surrounding the receipt of information from Consultants regarding
the vote fraud and voter intimidation project.

4. Circumstances surrounding staff efforts to write a final report for Commission
consideration.

5. Identification of staff members who assisted in the editing and collaboration of
the final vote fraud and voter intimidation report for Commission consideration.

6. Staff and/or Commissioner collaboration with political entities or other federal
agencies regarding the vote fraud and voter intimidation project.

7. Circumstances surrounding Commission discussion and deliberation of final
adoption of Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendation for Further
Study.

8. Issuance and management of the voter identification contract.

9. Circumstances surrounding the receipt of information from Contractor regarding
the voter identification report.

10. Identification of staff members who assisted in the editing, collaboration, and
recommendation to the Commission regarding final adoption of the voter
identification report.


April 16, 2007
MEMORANDUM

To: EAC Inspector General Curtis Crider

Fr: — EAC Chair Donetta Davidson

Ce: — Commissioners Rodriguez, Hillman and Hunter, Tom Wilkey, and Julie Hodgkins
RE: — EAC requests review of contracting procedures

On Friday, April 13, each of my three colleagues — Rosemary Rodriguez, Gracia Hillman,
and Caroline Hunter -- agreed with my recommendation that we issue the following
formal request to the Commission’s Office of Inspector General to review the
circumstances surrounding two recent EAC research projects — vote fraud and voter
intimidation and voter identification.

Background
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent, bipartisan
Commission created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.

EAC develops guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopts voluntary voting system
guidelines, accredits voting system test laboratories, certifies voting systems and audits
the use of HAVA funds. HAVA also directs EAC to maintain the national mail voter
registration form developed in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act
(NVRA) of 1993.

The Commission serves as a national clearinghouse and resource of information
regarding election administration. It is under the Commission’s clearinghouse role that
research projects are conducted with the goal of providing information that will lead to
improvements in election administration, as well as inform the public about how, where
and when we vote.

The voter identification research was conducted by Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, through its Eagleton Institute of Politics (“Contractor”). The contract, awarded in
May 2005, required the Contractor to perform a review and legal analysis of state
legislation, administrative procedures and court cases, and to perform a literature review
on other research and data available on the topic of voter identification requirements.
Further, the Contractor was asked to analyze the problems and challenges of voter
identification, to hypothesize alternative approaches and to recommend various policies
that could be applied to these approaches. Last month, the commission voted


Page 2 of 2

The draft report was written by outside experts under contract with the EAC. The final report was
entitled “Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study” and was

issued on December 7, 2006.

The EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by the 2002 Help America Vote Act in

order to disburse funds to the states for the purchase of new voting systems, certify voting

technologies, develop guidelines and serve as an information resource for election administration.

HH

WASHINGTON OFFICE
2227 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3216
(202) 225-4361
Fax: (202) 225-6001

BRONX OFFICE
788 Southern Blvd.
Bronx, New York 10455
(718) 620-0084
Fax: (718) 620-0658

Email: jserrano@mail.house.gov

http://serrano. house. gov/PressRelease.aspx?NewsID=1408

4/13/2007