The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview and Selected Issues for Congress

Changes from June 14, 2019 to February 23, 2023

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

~~The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress~~

~~June 14, 2019 (R45770)~~
~~Jump to Main Text of Report~~

Contents

Introduction

Overview of the EAC

Duties

Administration of Funding

Collection and Sharing of Information

Structure

Commission

Professional Staff

Advisory Bodies

Office of Inspector General

Operational Funding

History of the EAC

Setting up the Agency

Debate About the Permanence of the Agency

The Agency's Role in Federal Election Security Efforts

Legislative Activity on the EAC

Proposals That Engage the Existing Role of the EAC

Proposals to Change the Role of the EAC

Proposals to Terminate the EAC

Proposals to Expand the EAC's Authority

Proposals to Change the Way the EAC Works

Potential Considerations for Congress

Figures

Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart, 2019

Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners

Tables

Table 1. Funding Administered by the EAC

Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations from FY2006 to FY2019 (nominal $, in millions)

Table 3. Selected Proposals That Engage the Existing Role of the EAC

Table 4. Selected Proposals to Change the Role of the EAC

Table 5. Selected Proposals to Change the Way the EAC Functions

Summary

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency charged with helping improve the administration of federal elections. It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 116 Stat. 1666; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) and includes a four-member commission, a professional staff, an inspector general, and three advisory bodies.

The EAC—and the legislation that created it—marked a shift in the federal approach to election administration. Congress had set requirements for the conduct of elections before HAVA, but HAVA was the first federal election administration legislation also to back its requirements with substantial federal support. In addition to setting new types of requirements, it provided federal funding to help states meet those requirements and facilitate other improvements to election administration and created a dedicated federal agency—the EAC—to manage election administration funding and collect and share election administration information.

There was broad support in Congress during the HAVA debate for the idea of providing some assistance along these lines. Both at the time and since, however, opinions have differed about exactly what kind of assistance to provide and for how long. Members have disagreed about whether the EAC should be temporary or permanent, for example, and about what—if any—regulatory authority it should have.

Changes in the election administration landscape and in Congress have brought different aspects of the debate to the forefront at various times. The 112^th Congress saw the start of legislative efforts in the House to limit or eliminate the EAC, for example, while the agency's participation in the federal response to attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections has been cited as new grounds to extend or expand it.

These shifts have been reflected in some cases in legislative activity related to the agency. For example, bills have been introduced to grant the EAC additional authority as well as to eliminate it. Other legislative proposals would leave the fundamental role of the EAC largely as it is but add new versions of its existing responsibilities or change the way it performs those responsibilities. Such proposals would direct the EAC to administer new types of grants, for example, or add new members to its advisory bodies.

~~Introduction~~

~~The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency charged with helping improve the administration of federal~~ The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): February 23, 2023 Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Karen L. Shanton The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency that is Analyst in American charged with helping voters participate in the electoral process and election officials improve the National Government administration of elections. It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) as part of Congress’s response to problems with the administration of the 2000 elections. The EAC—and the legislation that created it—marked something of a shift in the federal approach to election administration. Previous federal election laws had set requirements for the administration of federal elections, but HAVA was the first to back its requirements with substantial support. The act authorized grant programs for elections and an assistance-oriented elections agency, the EAC. That focus on assistance—in combination with other objectives, such as providing for a range of expert input into agency activities and guarding against partisanship—informed the duties and structure of the agency. The EAC’s rulemaking authority is limited, and its other duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities rather than compelling them. Those duties, which are designed for input from a range of elections stakeholders, include administering grant programs; providing for voluntary voting system guidelines, testing, and certification; issuing voluntary guidance for implementation of certain HAVA requirements; conducting research and sharing best practices; and establishing a youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment program. The EAC consists of an appointed commission, a professional staff led by an executive director and general counsel, an Office of Inspector General, three statutory advisory bodies (Board of Advisors, Standards Board, and Technical Guidelines Development Committee), and one agency-created advisory body (Local Leadership Council). The structure of the EAC, like its duties, reflects its emphasis on assistance. The agency’s advisory bodies are central to its functioning, with opportunities for input into its guidance, planning, and staffing. Voters are represented on one of the advisory bodies, and state officials, local officials, or their representatives make up some or all of the membership of all four. The EAC was also set up to ensure a range of expert input into agency activities and help guard against partisanship. In addition to voters and state and local officials, for example, the advisory bodies include experts in a range of other fields relevant to election administration. The membership and selection processes for the commission and some of the advisory bodies, as well as a quorum requirement for certain actions by the commission, are also designed for partisan balance. Both at the time of HAVA and since, opinions have differed about exactly what role the EAC should play. One question Congress considered when developing the agency was whether it should exist as a separate agency at all. That question was also a subject of particular congressional interest for a period starting with the 112th Congress. As of the beginning of that Congress, the EAC had distributed most of the funding it was authorized by HAVA to administer and completed much of the research the act directed it to conduct. The authorization of operational funding for the agency had expired, and the National Association of Secretaries of State had recently renewed a resolution that called for disbanding the agency. Those developments were taken by some as evidence that the agency had outlived its usefulness. Members introduced legislation to terminate the EAC in each of the 112th through 115th Congresses, and the House Appropriations Committee recommended cutting or eliminating its funding each year between FY2012 and FY2018. At least as of the 116th and 117th Congresses, however, debate about whether there is a role for the EAC seems to have receded in prominence. Recent election cycles have seen a number of high-profile developments, including foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 cycle, and the EAC has played a role in the federal response to those developments. It has administered grant funding Congress has provided in response to some of them, for example, and developed resources to help election officials address physical and cybersecurity threats to their systems. Supporters of an ongoing role for the EAC have cited its participation in the federal response to recent developments as new grounds to extend or expand it. More generally, the primary focus of legislative activity on the agency seems to have shifted in the 116th and 117th Congresses from whether there is a role for the EAC to what that role should be. Congressional Research Service link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 19 link to page 27 link to page 10 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 33 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Notes on Terminology ............................................................................................................... 1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Duties ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Grant Programs ................................................................................................................... 4 Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification ........................................................ 8 Voluntary Guidance .......................................................................................................... 10 Research and Best Practices ............................................................................................... 11 Help America Vote College Program ................................................................................ 12 Structure .................................................................................................................................. 13 Commission ...................................................................................................................... 13 Professional Staff .............................................................................................................. 15 Advisory Bodies ............................................................................................................... 16 Office of Inspector General (OIG) .................................................................................... 18 History ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Initial Setup ............................................................................................................................. 19 Efforts to Terminate................................................................................................................. 20 Response to Recent Developments ......................................................................................... 23 Legislative Activity ....................................................................................................................... 24 Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency ...................................................... 24 What the Agency Should Do ................................................................................................... 25 How the Agency Should Function .......................................................................................... 26 Potential Considerations for Congress .......................................................................................... 27 Figures Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners .................................................................................... 23 Tables Table 1. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for EAC Grant Programs ..................................... 6 Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2003 to FY2013 ..................... 21 Table 3. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2014 to FY2023 ..................... 21 Table 4. Selected Legislation Related to Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 5. Selected Legislation Related to What the Agency Should Do ......................................... 26 Table 6. Selected Legislation Related to How the Agency Should Function ................................ 27 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 29 Congressional Research Service The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Congressional Research Service The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Introduction The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency that is charged with helping voters participate in the electoral process and election officials improve the administration of elections. It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252~~107-252; 116 Stat. 1666~~; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) as part of Congress'’s response to ~~administrative issues~~problems with the administration of the 2000 elections.1 ~~with the 2000 elections.¹~~

The EAC—and the legislation that created it—marked something of a shift in the federal approach to election administration. ~~Congress~~Previous federal election laws had set requirements for the conduct of elections before HAVA,² but HAVA was the first federal election administration legislation also to back its requirements with substantial federal support.³ In addition to setting new types of requirements, it provided federal funding to help states meet those requirements and facilitate other improvements to election administration and created a dedicated federal agency—the EAC—to manage election administration funding and collect and share election administration information.⁴

administration of federal elections, but HAVA was the first to back its requirements with substantial support.2 The act authorized grant programs for elections and an assistance-oriented elections agency, the EAC.3 There was broad support in Congress during the HAVA debate for the idea of providing some assistance along ~~these~~those lines. Both at the time and since, however, opinions have differed about exactly what role the EAC should play. Members have disagreed about whether the agency should focus solely on assistance or also have regulatory authority, for example, and whether it should be temporary or permanent. exactly what kind of assistance to provide and for how long. Members have disagreed about whether the EAC should be temporary or permanent, for example, and about what—if any—regulatory authority it should have.

Changes in the election administration landscape and in Congress have brought different aspects of the debate to the forefront at ~~various~~different times. The 112th through 115th Congresses saw attempts to terminate the agency, whereas recent developments like foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 election cycle have ~~times. The 112^th~~ Congress saw the start of legislative efforts in the House to limit or eliminate the EAC, for example, while the agency's participation in the federal response to attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections has been cited as new grounds to extend or expand it.⁵

4 This report provides an ~~introduction to the EAC~~overview of the agency in the context of ~~such developments~~those changes. It starts ~~with an overview of~~by describing the EAC~~'s duties, structure, and operational funding~~’s duties and structure, and then summarizes the history of the ~~EAC~~agency and related ~~and~~ legislative activity ~~related to the agency~~. The report closes ~~with~~by introducing some considerations that may be of interest to Members who are weighing whether or how to engage with issues related to the EAC or to election administration more broadly. Notes on Terminology In this report, “state” is generally intended to include the District of Columbia (DC) and U.S. territories. Exceptions to that general usage are references to “the 50 states,” which do not include 1 For more on HAVA, see CRS Report R46949, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy, by Karen L. Shanton. 2 For more on pre-HAVA requirements for the administration of federal elections, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett. 3 For more on federal grant funding for elections, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Federal Role in Elections Funding, by Karen L. Shanton. 4 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 634, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; H.R. 133, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns; and Committee Resolution 115-4, the Committee’s Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2018, markup, 115th Cong., 1st sess., February 7, 2017 (Washington: GPO, 2017), pp. 2-3; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Nominations, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., November 28, 2018, S.Hrg. 115-583 (Washington: GPO, 2019), pp. 1, 4. Congressional Research Service 1 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress DC or the territories, and references to “HAVA states,” which do not include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).5 “Election Assistance Commission” and “EAC” are sometimes used to refer to the appointed commission that is part of the agency. To avoid confusion, the report reserves those terms for the agency as a whole and uses “commission” for the appointed commission. EAC at a Glance Mission: “~~interest to Congress as it conducts oversight of the EAC and weighs whether or how to take legislative action on either the agency or election administration more broadly.~~

~~EAC at a Glance~~

~~Mission:~~ "The U.S. Election Assistance Commission helps election officials improve the administration of elections and helps Americans participate in the voting process."⁶

”6 Enabling Legislation: Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252~~; 116 Stat. 1666)~~

; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) Commission: Four members recommended by majority and minority congressional leadership and appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate

Advisory Bodies:

Board of Advisors: 35 members representing a range of election administration stakeholders, including state and local officials, federal agencies, science and technology experts, and voters

Standards Board: 110 members, with one state official and one local official from each of the 50 states, ~~the District of Columbia,~~ DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands⁷

Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC): 15 members representing a range of election administration stakeholders, including ~~state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and technology experts~~

Personnel (FY2019 Level): 31 full-time equivalent staff⁸

Appropriations for Salaries and Expenses (FY2019): $9.2 million, including $1.25 million for transfer to the National Institute of Standards and Technology⁹

Primary Oversight Committees: House Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as chair, state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and technology experts Local Leadership Council (LLC): 100 members, with two local election officials from each of the 50 states Personnel (FY2021): 46 ful -time equivalent (FTE) positions7 Appropriations for Salaries and Expenses (FY2023): $28.0 mil ion, including $1.5 mil ion to be made available to NIST for activities authorized under HAVA and $1.0 mil ion for the Help America Vote Col ege Program8 Primary Oversight Committees: Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Appropriations Subcommittees: Financial Services and General Government Overview The highest-profile problems with the administration of the 2000 elections were in Florida—where disputes about the vote count delayed resolution of the presidential race for weeks—but post-election investigations revealed widespread problems with states’ conduct of elections.9 Those investigations also prompted suggestions about how to avoid similar problems in the future, including proposals to increase federal involvement in elections.10 5 CNMI was not included in HAVA’s definition of “state” because it did not hold federal elections when HAVA was enacted in 2002. Testimony of the Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, in U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Voting Rights and Election Administration in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Other Territories, hearing, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2. 6 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/cbj/US_EAC_FY_2023_Congressional_Budget_Justification_508_FINAL.pdf. 7 EAC, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3. 8 P.L. 117-328. 9 Andrew Glass, “Congress Certifies Bush as Winner of 2000 Election, Jan. 6, 2001,” Politico, January 6, 2016, at https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/congress-certifies-bush-as-winner-of-2000-election-jan-6-2001-217291. 10 See, for example, The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Congressional Research Service 2 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Exactly what that involvement should look like was a matter of debate. There was general agreement that it should include~~Appropriations Subcommittees:~~ ~~Financial Services and General Government~~

Notes on Terminology

HAVA defines "states" as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.¹⁰ This report takes a similar approach. Except where context makes clear that another meaning is intended, such as in references to "the 50 states," "state" is intended to include U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.

"Election Assistance Commission" and "EAC" are used by some to refer to the four-member commission that is part of the agency. To avoid confusion, this report reserves those terms for the agency as a whole and uses "commission" for the four-member commission.

Overview of the EAC

The EAC was created by HAVA, Congress's primary legislative response to problems with the administration of the 2000 elections. Issues with the vote count in Florida delayed the results of the 2000 presidential race for weeks.¹¹ Subsequent investigations revealed widespread problems with states' conduct of elections. They also generated recommendations about how to prevent similar problems in the future, including via more expansive federal partnerships with states and localities.¹²

~~Exactly what those partnerships should look like was a matter of debate. There was broad agreement that they should involve~~ some federal assistance to states and localities. Proposals from Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress ~~included federal funding for improvements to election administration~~would have authorized election administration grant programs, for example, and federal guidance ~~on voting system standards, for example.¹³~~

about voting systems.11 Members disagreed, however, about other ~~features of the partnerships. These~~ aspects of federal involvement in elections. The disagreements were rooted in part in competing concerns. Some Members ~~were concerned~~worried that certain types of ~~federal~~ involvement would shift the balance of election administration authority from the states and localities~~, which~~ that have traditionally ~~had primary responsibility for administering~~run elections, to the federal government.¹⁴ ~~Others worried that~~ 12 Others were concerned that some states and localities would not—or could not—make necessary changes to their election systems without federal intervention.¹⁵

13 Disagreements about the ~~federal government's role in election administration~~proper role of the federal government in elections played out in at least two debates~~two discussions that were~~ relevant to the EAC: (1) whether any new federal ~~election administration~~ responsibilities should be ~~assumed by extant federal~~assigned to existing entities like the Federal Election Commission'’s (FEC'’s) Office of Election Administration (OEA) or an entirely new agency;, and (2) whether the new responsibilities should ~~be focused~~focus solely on supporting states and localities or ~~should~~ also include ~~more expansive authority to compel states and localities to act.¹⁶~~

~~The EAC, like HAVA as a whole, was a compromise.¹⁷~~ ~~It was a new agency, but its role was envisioned primarily as a support role~~authority to compel them to act.14 Congress struck a compromise in HAVA by creating a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as a support agency. As one of the primary architects of HAVA, Representative Robert Ney, noted in the markup of ~~the~~a 2001 version of the ~~bill,~~

act, [T]he name that we did choose, by the way, for this Commission is not an accident. The ~~purpose of this Commission is to assist State and local governments with their~~ purpose of this Commission is to assist State and local governments with their election administration problems, basically taking the attitude we are the government, we are here to help. Its purpose is not to dictate solutions or hand down bureaucratic mandates.¹⁸

~~The following subsections provide an overview of the agency that emerged as a compromise from HAVA. They describe the EAC's duties, structure, and operational funding.~~

Duties

Consistent with the positioning of the EAC as a support agency, HAVA strictly limits the agency's power to compel action by states and localities. Responsibility for enforcing HAVA's national election administration requirements is assigned by the act to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and state-based administrative complaint procedures rather than to the EAC.¹⁹ Decisions about exactly how to comply with those requirements are reserved to the states.²⁰ And EAC rulemaking is explicitly restricted to regulations for the voter registration reports and federal mail voter registration form required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 107 Stat. 77).²¹

Those limits do not mean the agency has no ability to influence state or local action. The EAC can trigger DOJ investigations of suspected violations of federal election law,²² for example, and revoke voting system certifications and testing lab accreditations.²³ The agency can audit its grantees and specify how they should address issues identified by the audits.²⁴ Its voting system testing and certification program can be binding on states that choose—as some states have—to make some or all of it mandatory under state law.²⁵ Its voluntary guidance, while nonbinding, could be used by other agencies to inform HAVA enforcement.²⁶

However, the EAC's duties are primarily envisioned by HAVA—and have primarily functioned—as support tasks. They fall into two general categories: (1) administration of funding and (2) collection and sharing of information.

Administration of Funding

The EAC is responsible for administering federal funding for improvements to election administration, including most of the grant and payment programs authorized by HAVA²⁷ and an election data collection grant program that was authorized and funded by the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).

Congress appropriated $380 million for payments to states under HAVA in FY2018 (P.L. 115-141), following reports of attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections.²⁸ Prior to those appropriations, funding was last provided for EAC-administered grants and payments in FY2010 (see ~~Table 1~~ ~~for details).²⁹~~

~~Table 1. Funding Administered by the EAC~~

Type of Funding	Authorized Amount	~~Appropriations Through FY2010~~^a	Appropriations Since FY2010	Selected U.S.C. Citations
~~Payments to states~~^b ~~for general improvements to the administration of federal elections~~	$325.0 million	~~$650.0 million~~^c	~~$380.0 million~~^d	52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906
Payments to states to replace lever or punch card voting systems	$325.0 million		—	52 U.S.C. §§20902, 20903-20906
~~Payments to states to meet national election administration requirements (requirements payments)~~^e	FY2003: $1.4 billion FY2004: $1.0 billion FY2005: $600.0 million ~~FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary~~^f	$2.6 billion	—	52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008
Grants for voting technology research	FY2003: $20.0 million	$8.0 million	—	52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043
Grants for voting technology pilot programs	FY2003: $10.0 million	~~$3.0 million~~^g	—	52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053
Funding for the National Student and Parent Mock Election Program	FY2003: $200,000 Subsequent six fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary	~~$1.2 million~~^h	—	52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072
Funding for the Help America Vote Foundation	FY2003: $5.0 million Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary	$2.3 million	—	36 U.S.C. §§90101-90112
Funding for the Help America Vote College Program	FY2003: $5.0 million Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary	~~$4.7 million~~ⁱ	—	52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123
Grants for election data collection pilot programs	$10.0 million	~~$10.0 million~~^h	—	52 U.S.C. §20981 note

Source: CRS, based on analysis of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures.

Notes: Figures are rounded and do not include rescissions or sequestration reductions. Appropriations figures include amounts specified in appropriations measures and accompanying explanatory statements.

a. The General Services Administration (GSA) handled some HAVA payments before the EAC had been set up, and the relevant appropriations included provisions for GSA's administrative expenses. Responsibility for administering the payments that were handled by GSA was subsequently transferred to the EAC.

b. ~~HAVA defines "states" as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.~~

c. The FY2003 appropriations bill included $650 million for the payments in the first two rows of this table without specifying a distribution of funds between them. The FY2003 bill also provided a one-time $15 million payment to reimburse states that had acquired optical scan or electronic voting machines prior to the November 2000 elections.

d. The explanatory statement accompanying the FY2018 appropriations bill indicated that this funding was intended to be used for enhancing election technology and improving election security. The amount appropriated in the FY2018 bill—$380 million—appears to be approximately equal to the difference between the $3 billion HAVA authorized for requirements payments and the amount Congress had appropriated for requirements payments through FY2018. HAVA sets conditions on requirements payments that do not apply to payments for general improvements to the administration of federal elections. For more on those conditions, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Selected Issues for the 2016 Election, by Arthur L. Burris and Eric A. Fischer.

e. HAVA required states that did not meet certain deadlines to return some of the funding they received for replacing lever and punch card voting systems. The act directed the EAC to use such returned funds for requirements payments.

f. Under HAVA, funding authorized for requirements payments for FY2010 and subsequent years may be used only to meet requirements added to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA; P.L. 99-410; 100 Stat. 924) by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 (MOVE Act; P.L. 111-84; 123 Stat. 2190).

g. The FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations bills provided $1 million and $2 million, respectively, for a pilot program for grants to states and localities to conduct pre-election logic and accuracy testing and post-election verification of voting systems.

h. ~~The explanatory statement accompanying the FY2008 appropriations bill designated $112,500 for administrative costs related to the mock election program and the election data collection pilot program.~~

i. ~~The explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations bill encouraged the EAC to spend an additional $250,000 on this program.~~

The EAC's administrative responsibilities typically extend past the fiscal year for which funding is appropriated. Much of the funding it administers has been provided as multiyear or no-year funds,³⁰ and it performs ongoing funding maintenance tasks, such as providing technical assistance to funding recipients and issuing advisory opinions about proposed uses of funds.³¹ Through its Office of Inspector General (OIG), the EAC also audits grantees to confirm that they are meeting funding conditions, such as matching-fund and maintenance-of-effort requirements, and using funds as intended.³²

Collection and Sharing of Information

HAVA folded the FEC's OEA into the EAC, transferring its staff, duties, and funding to the new agency.³³ The OEA had performed a clearinghouse function at the FEC.³⁴ That function was first established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-225; 86 Stat. 3) at the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office [GAO]),³⁵ as a source of election administration research and a forum for sharing election administration information.³⁶ The function was transferred to the FEC when that agency was created in 1975 (P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263).³⁷

The mandate expanded at the FEC to include creating and updating voluntary federal standards for voting systems and, following the enactment of the NVRA in 1993, producing a biennial voter registration report and developing and maintaining a federal mail voter registration form.³⁸

These information collection and sharing functions have carried over to—and undergone further expansion at—the EAC. The following subsections describe the EAC's information collection and sharing duties.

Research and Coordination

Like its clearinghouse predecessors at GAO and the FEC, the EAC conducts election administration research and provides opportunities for election administration stakeholders to share their experience and expertise.³⁹

Some of the work the EAC does as part of its research function is mandated specifically. The Election and Voting Survey (EAVS) it produces after each regular federal general election, for example, includes an NVRA-mandated voter registration report⁴⁰ and reporting on military and overseas voting that is required by UOCAVA.⁴¹ The EAC was also directed by HAVA to conduct studies of military and overseas voting; voting system usability and accessibility; HAVA's voter identification requirement; use of Social Security information for voter verification; use of the internet in electoral processes; and postage-free absentee voting.⁴²

The EAC also has considerable latitude to conduct other election administration research.⁴³ It has issued a number of reports under this authority, including studies of rural versus urban election administration, alternative voting methods, and voter fraud and intimidation. The EAC has also released products that are specifically geared toward practitioners, such as a series of Quick Start Guides for election managers.⁴⁴

The EAC facilitates information exchanges among election administration stakeholders in multiple ways, from publishing state and local best practices and requests for proposals to convening meetings and hosting roundtables and summits.⁴⁵ One particularly high-profile example of the EAC's coordination work is its participation in the federal response to reports of attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections. For more on that work, see the "The Agency's Role in Federal Election Security Efforts" section of this report.

Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification

The FEC adopted the first voluntary federal voting system standards (VSS) in 1990 and updated them in 2002.⁴⁶ The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a professional organization for state election directors, established a program to accredit labs to test voting systems to the VSS and certify systems as meeting the standards.⁴⁷ When the EAC was created, it inherited enhanced versions of the FEC's and NASED's voting system guidelines, testing, and certification responsibilities.

The VSS were replaced at the EAC by Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which were called "guidelines" to distinguish them from the mandatory voting systems standards included among HAVA's national election administration requirements.⁴⁸ One of the EAC's advisory bodies, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), is charged with drafting the VVSG.⁴⁹ The draft guidelines are made available to the public, the agency's executive director, and the EAC's other two advisory bodies, the Board of Advisors and the Standards Board, for review and comment before they are submitted to the commissioners for a vote on adoption.⁵⁰

The commissioners are also responsible for accrediting laboratories to test voting systems to the VVSG and revoking lab accreditations; certifying, decertifying, and recertifying systems as meeting the VVSG; and issuing advisories to help voting system manufacturers and testing labs interpret the VVSG. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which provides the TGDC with technical support on request and whose Director chairs the TGDC, is charged with monitoring voting system testing labs and making recommendations to the commission about lab accreditations and accreditation revocations.⁵¹

The VVSG were first adopted in 2005 and updated in 2015. The 2005 version updated and expanded the 2002 VSS to account for technological advances and to increase security and accessibility requirements.⁵² The 2015 iteration aimed to update outdated portions of the 2005 VVSG and increase the guidelines' testability.⁵³

As of May 2019, the EAC was working on a second update (VVSG 2.0).⁵⁴ Unlike previous versions of the VVSG, which were presented as device-specific recommendations, VVSG 2.0 separates higher-level principles and guidelines from technical details. The main document, which was released for public comment on February 28, 2019, sets out function-based principles, such as auditability, and guidelines, such as capacity to support efficient audits and resilience against intentional tampering. Supplementary documents are expected to provide the technical specifications required to help voting system manufacturers to implement—and voting system testing labs to test whether systems meet—the higher-level principles and guidelines.⁵⁵

States are not required by federal law to adhere to the VVSG,⁵⁶ but some have made the guidelines mandatory under their own state laws.⁵⁷ States may also adopt other parts of the federal voting system testing and certification program. For example, they may choose to require voting systems to be tested by a federally accredited lab.⁵⁸

Voluntary Guidance

HAVA set new national election administration requirements—such as certain standards for voting systems and requirements to offer provisional voting, post sample ballots at the polls on Election Day, and create and maintain a computerized statewide voter registration list⁵⁹—and charged the EAC with adopting voluntary guidance about how to meet them.⁶⁰

This voluntary guidance is intended to offer specifics about how to implement HAVA's general mandates. The EAC's guidance on statewide voter registration lists, for example, indicates that either a "top-down" system, in which a centrally located voter registration database is connected to local terminals, or a "bottom-up" system, in which information from locally hosted databases is used to update a central list, is acceptable under the law.⁶¹

As indicated by the name, this guidance is voluntary; states and localities can choose whether or not to adopt it.⁶² As noted above, however, the voluntary guidance the EAC issues could be used by other agencies to inform HAVA enforcement.

Structure

The EAC includes a four-member commission, a professional staff led by an executive director and general counsel, an OIG, and three advisory bodies: the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board, and the TGDC. Its primary oversight committees are the House Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.⁶³ The components of the EAC are described in more detail in the subsections below.

~~The structure of the EAC was informed by at least three objectives:~~

State and Local Partnership. The EAC's advisory bodies play a central role in the agency's functioning, and state and local officials or the professional associations that represent them serve on or appoint members to all three bodies.⁶⁴

Expert Input. The advisory bodies also feature a wide range of experience and expertise. In addition to state and local officials, members include representatives of voters, scientific and technical specialists, and disability access experts, among others.⁶⁵

Bipartisanship. The commission and two of the advisory bodies are designed to be politically balanced, and the commission cannot take certain actions without a three-vote majority of its members.
The agency's structure has also had implications for its functioning. For example, the three-vote quorum requirement for commission action has led at times to delays and inactivity. For more on such implications, see the "Debate About the Permanence of the Agency" section of this report.

~~Relationship of the EAC to Other Federal Entities~~

Prior to the creation of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the Federal Election Commission (FEC) housed the main federal entity dedicated to election administration as a whole: the Office of Election Administration (OEA). The EAC inherited OEA's duties, funding, and staff from the FEC. The EAC and FEC both work on election-related issues, and there are parallels between the structures of their similarly even-numbered and bipartisan commissions. However, the two agencies have different mandates and authorities—the FEC is a regulatory agency that focuses on campaign finance while the EAC is a nonregulatory agency that covers election administration—and they do not generally work together.

The EAC does work closely with other parts of the federal government. Multiple federal agencies are represented on its advisory bodies, and one of them, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also contributes to some of the EAC's research, grant-making, and voting system testing and certification functions. The EAC provides election administration expertise to federal agencies directly and via reports and congressional testimony; collaborates with federal entities on research; and coordinates with federal agencies, state and local officials, and other election administration stakeholders. For example, following the designation of election systems as critical infrastructure in 2017, the EAC assisted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with setting up the new Election Infrastructure Subsector.⁶⁶ The EAC also has or has had relationships with other agencies that have had statutory obligations under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 116 Stat. 1666), including the General Services Administration, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

For more on federal involvement in election administration, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.

Commission

The commission is designed to have four members, each of whom is required to have elections experience or expertise and no more than two of whom may be affiliated with the same political party. Candidates for the commission are recommended by the majority or minority leadership of the House or Senate and appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.⁶⁷

Commissioners are appointed to four-year terms on staggered two-year cycles.⁶⁸ They may be reappointed to up to one additional term and may continue to serve on "holdover" status after their terms expire, pending appointment of a successor. Two commissioners representing different political parties are chosen by the commission membership each year to serve one-year terms as chair and vice chair.⁶⁹

Certain actions by the commission require a three-vote majority of its members.⁷⁰ According to an organizational management document adopted by the commission in February 2015, the commission is responsible for setting EAC policy.⁷¹ Among the actions that require a policymaking quorum of the EAC's commissioners are adopting voluntary guidance and the VVSG, appointing an executive director or general counsel, and promulgating regulations for the NVRA-mandated voter registration reports and federal mail voter registration form.⁷²

Professional Staff

~~The EAC has two statutory officers—an executive director and a general counsel—who are appointed by the commission. Both serve four-year terms and are eligible for reappointment.⁷³~~

~~HAVA grants the executive director the authority to hire other professional staff (see~~ ~~Figure 1~~ for an organizational chart of the agency as of 2019).⁷⁴ As a matter of policy, the executive director is also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the agency, including preparing policy recommendations for consideration by the commissioners, implementing adopted policies, and handling administrative affairs.⁷⁵

~~Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart, 2019~~

Source: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, March 18, 2019, p, 10, at ~~https://www.eac.gov/assets/~~1/6/~~EACFY2020BudgetJustification.pdf~~.

The size of the EAC's staff has varied, from the four commissioners and handful of OEA transfers in FY2004 to 50 full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) in FY2010 and around 30 FTEs since FY2015.⁷⁶ The number of FTEs the agency could maintain was capped at 22 in FY2005 and 23 in FY2006.⁷⁷ The cap was lifted in FY2007 and, as of May 2019, had not been reinstated.⁷⁸

Advisory Bodies

HAVA created three advisory bodies for the EAC: the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board, and the TGDC. The three bodies—whose members represent a variety of agencies, associations, organizations, and interests—play important roles in the agency's functioning. The following subsections describe their structures and responsibilities.

The Board of Advisors and the Standards Board

The EAC's Board of Advisors and its Standards Board review voluntary guidance and the VVSG before they are presented to the commissioners for a vote on adoption.⁷⁹ In the event of a vacancy for executive director of the EAC, each of the boards is directed by HAVA to appoint a search committee for the position, and the commission is required to consider the candidates the search committees recommend.⁸⁰ The commission is also directed to consult with the two boards on research efforts, program goals, and long-term planning; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) must consult with the boards on its monitoring and review of voting system testing labs.⁸¹

The Board of Advisors was initially assigned 37 members, but its membership dropped to 35 with the 2016 merger of two of the organizations responsible for appointing its members.⁸² Sixteen members of the board are appointed by organizations that represent state and local officials,⁸³ and seven represent federal entities.⁸⁴ Four members are science and technology professionals, who are each appointed by the majority or minority leadership of the House or Senate. The remaining eight are voter representatives, two of whom are appointed by each of the chairs and ranking members of the EAC's two primary oversight committees. The overall membership of the board is intended to be bipartisan and geographically representative.⁸⁵

The Standards Board has 110 members. They include two representatives of each of the U.S. jurisdictions that are eligible for HAVA's formula-based payments: the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each pair of representatives consists of one state election official and one local election official who are not affiliated with the same political party.⁸⁶

The Standards Board chooses nine of its members to serve two-year terms on its Executive Board. Executive Board members may serve no more than three consecutive terms, and no more than five Executive Board members may be either state officials, local officials, or members of the same political party.⁸⁷

Technical Guidelines Development Committee

The 15-member TGDC is charged with helping the executive director of the EAC develop and maintain the VVSG. The Director of NIST serves as the chair of the committee and, in consultation with the commission, appoints its other 14 members. Appointees to the TGDC must include an equal number of members of the Board of Advisors, Standards Board, and Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board); one representative of each of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); two NASED representatives who are chosen by the organization and neither share a political party nor serve on the Board of Advisors or Standards Board; and other individuals with voting system-related scientific or technical expertise.⁸⁸

Office of Inspector General

The EAC is required to have an OIG under HAVA and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (P.L. 95-452; 92 Stat. 1101).⁸⁹ As noted in the "Administration of Funding" section of this report, the EAC's OIG oversees audits of the use of HAVA funding and refers issues identified in audits to EAC management for resolution and, if necessary, corrective action.⁹⁰ In one instance, for example, the OIG determined that a HAVA grantee could not document its grant costs, and the EAC put the organization on a payment plan to return the funds.⁹¹ In another case, some of a state's spending was found to be impermissible and some was found to be inadequately documented. The state was directed to repay the former funding to the U.S. Treasury and the latter to its HAVA state election fund.⁹²

The OIG also oversees internal audits and investigations of the EAC. This work includes regular audits of the EAC's finances and compliance with federal laws, such as the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347; 116 Stat. 2899), and reports on management challenges facing the agency. It also includes special audits and investigations in response to complaints about fraud, waste, mismanagement, or abuse at the EAC, such as a 2008 investigation of allegations of political bias in the agency's preparation of a voter fraud and intimidation report and a 2010 investigation of complaints about its work environment.⁹³

Operational Funding

The EAC has received operational funding for salaries and expenses, including for its OIG, in addition to the funding it has received for the grants and payments it administers and for transfers to NIST for HAVA-related activities like monitoring voting system testing labs. EAC appropriations have been under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees since those subcommittees were created in 2007.⁹⁴

HAVA explicitly authorized up to $10 million in operational funding for the EAC in each of FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005.⁹⁵ Congress appropriated significantly less than the authorized ceiling in the first two fiscal years: $2 million in FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) and $1.2 million, plus approximately $500,000 transferred from the OEA, in FY2004 (P.L. 108-7; P.L. 108-199).⁹⁶ The House Appropriations Committee also recommended significant cuts to the President's budget request for the agency from FY2012 through FY2018, although the enacted bills hewed more closely to presidential and Senate proposals. For more on those cases, see the "Setting up the Agency" section of this report and ~~Table 2, respectively.~~

Congress appropriated $10.8 million for EAC salaries and expenses in the final year for which operational funding was explicitly authorized for the agency, FY2005 (P.L. 108-447).⁹⁷ Although the explicit authorization of appropriations for EAC operations only ran through FY2005, the agency has continued to receive operational funding in subsequent years pursuant to its enabling legislation (see ~~Table 2~~ ~~for details).~~

~~Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations from FY2006 to FY2019 (nominal $, in millions)~~

~~Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, as indicated~~

Fiscal Year	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
Enacted	11.4	11.3	12.3	12.9	13.4	13.1	8.8	8.8	8.1	8.1	8.1	8.2	8.6	8.0
President	14.8	12.0	12.2	12.7	13.3	13.6	10.5	8.8	8.3	8.1	8.1	8.3	7.7	7.7
~~House~~^a	13.1	12.0	12.2	12.9	13.4	12.7	5.2	4.4	0.0	0.0	4.8	4.9	5.5	~~8.6~~^b
~~Senate~~^a	9.9	12.1	12.2	12.7	13.3	13.6	11.5	8.8	8.3	8.1	8.1	8.1	7.7	7.7

Source: CRS, based on data from the President's budget requests and appropriations bills, drafts, and reports.

Notes: Figures are from appropriations for the EAC's Salaries and Expenses account, including funds designated for the OIG. They are rounded and do not reflect rescissions, sequestration reductions, or funds designated for NIST, mock election grants, or the Help America Vote College Program.

a. Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed bill and regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-reported measures, with the exception of one case in which the measure was not reported out of subcommittee and another case in which it was not reported out of committee. The Senate figures for FY2015 and FY2018 are from the subcommittee bill and the committee chairman's draft, respectively.

b. ~~This figure reflects the level in House-passed bill H.R. 6147. The House subsequently passed other bills that would have provided other levels of funding for the EAC.~~

Some Members have proposed explicitly reauthorizing appropriations for EAC operations, although none of the proposals had been enacted as of May 2019. For more on such proposals, see the "Proposals That Engage the Existing Role of the EAC" section of this report.

History of the EAC

It took some time for the EAC to become operational. HAVA called for members to be appointed to the agency's commission within 120 days of the act's enactment (on October 29, 2002), but the first four commissioners did not take office for more than a year.⁹⁸ Without commissioners, the agency drew limited appropriations, and the lack of commissioners and funding led to inactivity and missed deadlines.

After nearly a decade of agency operations, the 112^th Congress saw the start of efforts to limit or eliminate the EAC, as some Members of Congress questioned whether there was still a need for the agency. More recently—following reports of attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections—proponents of the EAC have cited the agency's participation in federal election security efforts as new grounds to preserve it.⁹⁹

This section traces the history of the EAC from its origins in the wake of the 2000 elections to its position after the 2016 elections.

Setting up the Agency

HAVA called for members to be appointed to the commission by February 26, 2003, but the first four commissioners did not take office until December 13, 2003.¹⁰⁰

The act also explicitly authorized up to $10 million in funding for EAC operations for each of FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005.¹⁰¹ With no commissioners in place for the first of those fiscal years or the start of the second, Congress appropriated significantly less than that amount in FY2003 and FY2004 (P.L. 108-7; P.L. 108-199).

In a 2004 oversight hearing on the EAC, some Members of Congress expressed concern that the limited early funding and delays in establishing the EAC had affected the agency's ability to perform its duties.¹⁰² One Member referred, for example, to missed deadlines for adopting voluntary guidance.¹⁰³ As set out in HAVA, the deadlines for the EAC to adopt voluntary guidance for meeting the act's requirements preceded the deadlines for states to start meeting them.¹⁰⁴ In theory, that would have given states the chance to review the agency's guidance before they finalized action on the requirements.¹⁰⁵ In practice, the commissioners took office nearly a month-and-a-half after the first guidance was due and less than three weeks before states were supposed to have started meeting requirements.¹⁰⁶

Some of the deadlines for conducting statutorily mandated research had also passed before the commissioners were sworn in, and some commissioners testified that the early issues had caused them to limit the scope of their ambitions for other projects.¹⁰⁷ "We are unable to do anything more than … really recite anecdotal things that we have heard as opposed to giving research-based guidance to States on how to implement" certain election measures, then-Commissioner Ray Martinez said about the commission's ongoing guidance work, for example. He added, "That is a critical point. We just don't have the means at this point to do anything other than how we are going about it, which I think is a very responsible and the best possible way that we can, but it is within the context of some very severely limited funds."¹⁰⁸

Debate About the Permanence of the Agency

Some aspects of HAVA, such as the provision for reappointment of EAC commissioners to a second four-year term and the absence of a sunset provision for the agency, are consistent with a vision of the EAC as a continuing agency.¹⁰⁹ Others, such as explicitly authorizing only three years of operational funding, suggest something more temporary.¹¹⁰ That has left room for debate about how long-lasting the EAC should be.

Some have viewed its proper role as permanent. At various points in the HAVA debate, for example, Members of the Senate characterized the agency as permanent.¹¹¹ Other Members of Congress have highlighted benefits of ongoing EAC responsibilities like updating the VVSG, conducting the EAVS, and providing technical and other assistance to the states. They have argued that the tasks the EAC performs are essential and could not be carried out as effectively—or much more cost-effectively—by other agencies.¹¹²

Other Members have seen the agency as temporary. As of the beginning of the 112^th Congress, the EAC had distributed much of the funding it was authorized by HAVA to administer and completed a number of the studies HAVA directed it to conduct. The National Association of Secretaries of State had recently renewed a resolution—first adopted in 2005 and subsequently to be approved again in 2015—that called for the agency's elimination.¹¹³ The EAC's inspector general reported ongoing issues with the agency's performance management, information security, work environment, records management, and overhead expenses.¹¹⁴

Such factors were cited by some as evidence that the agency had outlived its usefulness.¹¹⁵ Bills were introduced to terminate the EAC, and the House Appropriations Committee recommended cutting or eliminating its operational funding. For more on those activities, see the "Proposals to Terminate the EAC" section of this report and ~~Table 2, respectively.~~

The Senate also stopped confirming—and some congressional leaders stopped recommending¹¹⁶—nominees to the EAC. The commission lost the numbers required for a policymaking quorum in December 2010 and both of its remaining members in December 2011 (see ~~Figure 2~~ for details).¹¹⁷ The Senate, some of whose Members cited opposition to the ongoing existence of the agency rather than to individual nominees, did not confirm any new commissioners until December 2014.¹¹⁸

Without the numbers for a policymaking quorum, the commission could not take official action. One notable consequence was that it could not update the VVSG.¹¹⁹ The creation of the EAC was, in part, a response to the FEC's handling of the VSS. The committee report on legislation containing a precursor to the VVSG provisions of HAVA, for example, cited the FEC's failure to keep the VSS up to date.¹²⁰ The lack of numbers for a quorum between December 2011 and the swearing-in of the newly confirmed commissioners in January 2015, however, left an almost 10-year gap between the EAC's initial adoption of the VVSG in 2005 and its first update in 2015.¹²¹

~~Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners~~

Source: CRS, based on data from the EAC and Congress.gov.

The Agency's Role in Federal Election Security Efforts

The U.S. Intelligence Community reported in 2016 that foreign entities had attempted to interfere with that year's elections.¹²² The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded in January 2017 by designating election systems as critical infrastructure,¹²³ and Congress responded in March 2018 by appropriating $380 million for payments to states that, it indicated in an accompanying explanatory statement, it intended to be used for enhancing election technology and improving election security (see ~~Table 1~~ ~~for details).¹²⁴~~

The EAC has participated in both responses. First, it was charged with administering the new payments to states (P.L. 115-141). Second, it helped set up—and, in some cases, serves as a member of—the special channels for sharing threat information and facilitating sector and subsector coordination that came with the critical infrastructure designation. Those channels include the Election Infrastructure Subsector's Government Coordinating Council and Executive Committee, Sector Coordinating Council, and Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center.¹²⁵

The EAC has also focused on election security in some of its other work. It has provided information technology management trainings for election officials, for example, and produced election security and critical infrastructure resources for voters.¹²⁶

Supporters of a permanent role for the EAC have pointed to its participation in the federal government's election security efforts as a new reason to keep the agency.¹²⁷ Other Members have also indicated that they see a longer-term role for the agency in light of the 2016 elections. For example, the House Appropriations Committee proposed increasing the EAC's operational funding above the President's budget request in FY2019 after seven years of recommending substantial cuts (see ~~Table 2~~ ~~for details).¹²⁸~~

Legislative Activity on the EAC

The EAC has continued to be a subject of legislative activity since its creation by HAVA. It has been part of the appropriations process, receiving operational funding each fiscal year. For more on appropriations activity on the EAC, see the "Operational Funding" section of this report.

It has also featured in a range of authorizing legislation. Some post-HAVA authorization bills have tapped into the existing role of the agency, while others have proposed changes to that role. There have also been proposals that focused less on the nature of the role the EAC performs than on how it performs that role.

Proposals That Engage the Existing Role of the EAC

The EAC has traditionally been responsible for managing certain election administration-related funding, adopting guidance for meeting some national election administration requirements, serving as a federal source of election administration expertise, conducting election administration research, and helping connect election administration stakeholders with one another. Members looking for a federal agency to perform such tasks—to administer new grants to states to conduct risk-limiting audits, for example, or to set standards for electronic poll books—have often turned to the EAC in their legislative proposals.¹²⁹ Members have also proposed explicitly reauthorizing appropriations for EAC operations either permanently or for a set number of years.

~~Table 3~~ ~~presents selected examples of such bills.~~

~~Table 3. Selected Proposals That Engage the Existing Role of the EAC~~

Short Title

Number

Congress

Latest Status

Summary of Selected Provisions

For the People Act of 2019

H.R. 1

116^th

Passed House

Would establish a National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and direct the chair of the EAC to appoint one of its members

Election Security Act

H.R. 5011

115^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to make grants to states to replace voting systems, improve voting system security, and conduct risk-limiting audits

Voter Registration Modernization Act

S. 1088

114^th

Introduced

Would have established national voter registration requirements, and directed the EAC to make payments to states to help meet them

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2014

H.R. 5741

113^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to develop best practices for documenting voting system chains of custody

Federal Election Integrity Act of 2012

H.R. 6408

112^th

Introduced

Would have directed states to provide voter ID cards at no charge to individuals who attest they cannot afford a fee, and directed the EAC to make payments to states to help provide the ID cards

Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2009

H.R. 105

111^th

Introduced

Would have permanently reauthorized appropriations for operational funding for the EAC

E-Poll Book Improvement Act of 2007

H.R. 756

110^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to adopt voluntary guidance for electronic poll books and to include electronic poll books in federal testing and certification

Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov.

Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bills in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bill in which they appear.

Proposals to Change the Role of the EAC

The long-standing disagreements about the federal role in election administration that played out in the HAVA debate and in discussions about filling seats on the commission have also played out in post-HAVA legislative proposals. There have been proposals both to expand the EAC's authority and to eliminate the agency entirely. There have also been proposals to eliminate or substantially reduce the agency's funding. For more on proposed funding cuts, see the "Operational Funding" and "Debate About the Permanence of the Agency" sections of this report.

Proposals to Terminate the EAC

Some post-HAVA legislation has proposed eliminating the EAC. By the beginning of the 112^th Congress, almost a decade had passed since HAVA was enacted. As noted in the "Debate About the Permanence of the Agency" section of this report, the EAC was nearing the end of some of the bigger projects it had been assigned by HAVA. And other agencies, such as NIST, were already playing a central role in ongoing EAC responsibilities like the federal voting system testing and certification program. There was a sense among some Members that there was no longer a need for a separate agency to fill the role the EAC had been filling. Combined with concerns about how the agency was being managed, this prompted calls to terminate it. Bills to disband the EAC and transfer duties to other agencies were introduced in each Congress from the 112^th to the 115^th.

Proposals to Expand the EAC's Authority

Other bills have taken the opposite tack, proposing new authority for the EAC. One such approach has been to revisit the limit on EAC rulemaking, proposing lifting it in certain cases—such as to permit the agency to promulgate regulations for a proposed new federal write-in absentee ballot—or striking it entirely. Another approach has been to propose giving the agency new powers to direct state or local action, such as imposing penalties for noncompliance with certain national election administration requirements or designating types of evidence that state and local officials may not use as grounds for removing individuals from the voter rolls.

~~Table 4~~ ~~presents selected examples of proposals to terminate the EAC or to expand its authority.~~

~~Table 4. Selected Proposals to Change the Role of the EAC~~

Short Title

Number

Congress

Latest Status

Summary of Selected Provisions

Voter Empowerment Act of 2019

S. 549

116^th

Introduced

Would permit the EAC to designate evidence that may not be used as the basis for removing voters from the rolls

Election Assistance Commission Termination Act

H.R. 634

115^th

Introduced

Would have terminated the EAC

Election Integrity Act of 2016

H.R. 6072

114^th

Introduced

Would have struck the limit on EAC rulemaking

Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act

H.R. 672

112^th

Failed House

Would have terminated the EAC

Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2009

H.R. 105

111^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to establish a federal write-in absentee ballot and lifted the limit on EAC rulemaking as applied to the new absentee ballot

Valuing Our Trust in Elections Act

H.R. 2250

109^th

Introduced

Would have permitted the EAC to impose penalties for noncompliance with the act's requirements on states that receive funding under the act

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003

S. 1980

108^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to conduct unannounced manual recounts of election results

Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov.

Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bills in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bill in which they appear.

Proposals to Change the Way the EAC Works

Some post-HAVA legislation on the EAC has focused less on what the agency does and more on how it does it. Bills have been introduced that propose structural changes to the agency, such as adding members to its advisory bodies or creating new advisory boards or task forces, and procedural changes, such as adjusting the payment process for voting system testing, changing how the EAC submits its budget requests, and exempting the agency from certain federal requirements.

Such proposals aim to address perceived weaknesses in the way the agency operates. Some proposals may be responses to perceived inefficiencies in current processes, such as delays caused by the commission's quorum requirement or the public comment requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511; 94 Stat. 2812), or to a perceived need for new kinds of experience or expertise at the agency. Other proposals may aim to prevent possible conflicts of interest, such as by eliminating direct payments from vendors to voting system testing labs, or to give Congress more insight into the agency's resource needs, such as by requiring it to submit budget requests to Congress at the same time as it sends them to the President or the Office of Management and Budget.¹³⁰

~~Table 5~~ ~~presents selected examples of these kinds of structural and procedural proposals.~~

~~Table 5. Selected Proposals to Change the Way the EAC Functions~~

Short Title

Number

Congress

Latest Status

Summary of Selected Provisions

For the People Act of 2019

H.R. 1

116^th

Passed House

Would add the Secretary of DHS to the EAC's Board of Advisors and a DHS representative to the TGDC

Voting Innovation Prize Act of 2018

H.R. 6564

115^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to establish a prize competition for voting technology innovation and permitted the EAC to promulgate relevant regulations and carry out the act without a quorum

Voter Empowerment Act of 2013

H.R. 12

113^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to establish an escrow account for payments to voting system testing labs and a schedule of testing fees for vendors

Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007

S. 737

110^th

Introduced

Would have created an Office of the Voter Advocate and Board of Advisors to help the EAC develop and administer a Democracy Index

Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act of 2008

S. 3722

110^th

Introduced

Would have added representatives of the voting system manufacturing industry and accessibility and usability sector to the TGDC

Secure America's Vote Act of 2005

H.R. 3094

109^th

Introduced

Would have directed the EAC to submit its budget estimates and requests to Congress at the same time as it sent them to the President or the Office of Management and Budget

Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov.

Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bills in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bill in which they appear.

Potential Considerations for Congress

Congress has the authority to conduct oversight of the EAC and to legislate on both the EAC in particular and election administration more generally.¹³¹ In addition to issues raised by previous legislative proposals, such as whether to terminate the agency, the following issues may be of interest to Members as they consider whether or how to undertake such activities or whether to maintain the status quo:

Providing for New Expertise. The EAC was structured to ensure input from a range of election administration stakeholders, from voters to technical specialists to accessibility experts.¹³² However, new developments, such as new election security threats, might call for experience or expertise not currently represented at the agency. If Congress seeks to assure the EAC access to such experience or expertise, how might it do so? Some possible options include directing the EAC to consult with specialist organizations or agencies, funding specialized professional staff or creating specialized departments within the agency, adding members to one or more of the advisory bodies, and establishing new advisory bodies or task forces. Are there reasons to prefer some of these options over others? For example, the EAC's advisory bodies play a particularly central role in the functioning of the agency. Are there reasons to want certain stakeholders to have—or not to have—such direct access to EAC actions and decisionmaking?¹³³

Assigning (and Reassigning) Responsibilities. The EAC is the only federal agency dedicated to election administration as a whole.¹³⁴ As such, it is often taken to be the obvious choice to assume federal election administration responsibilities. As noted above, however, some Members have suggested that some of the duties currently in the EAC's portfolio might be better performed by other agencies or in other ways.¹³⁵ Are there election administration-related issues about which parts of the federal government other than the EAC might have relevant expertise? For example, the EAC has traditionally been the primary federal repository of election administration best practices, but DHS also provides resources related to election security.¹³⁶ Questions might arise, with respect to certain elections-related duties, about which agency—or combination of agencies—is best positioned to perform them. More broadly, how might the EAC's and other agencies' comparative advantages guide assignment of new federal election administration responsibilities or reassignment of existing responsibilities?

Assessing and Meeting Resource Needs. The EAC has been described variously as both overfunded and underfunded.¹³⁷ Developments like the emergence of new election security threats have prompted calls for additional resources for agency operations and for distribution to states via the EAC.¹³⁸ How do current levels of funding match up to the agency's—and its grantees'—resource needs? Are there tools, such as concurrent budget submission or research into appropriate funding levels for HAVA payments, that might help Congress better assess those needs?¹³⁹ Are there resources other than funding, such as security clearances for commissioners or professional staff, that the EAC needs and does not currently have?

Considering the Role of the Quorum Requirement. The quorum requirement for official action by the commission has led at times to delays and inactivity, such as deferred updates to the VVSG. Does Congress seek to consider ways to reduce the likelihood or frequency of such delays? If so, would it prefer an approach that eliminated the need for a quorum in certain cases, such as by exempting certain actions from the quorum requirement,¹⁴⁰ or one that reduced the likelihood of the commission being without a quorum? Options for the latter approach might include structural changes to the commission, such as adding or removing a seat, or procedural changes to the way commissioners are seated, such as revising the roles of the President and congressional leadership in the candidate selection process.

Scheduling EAC Action. HAVA envisioned that the EAC would adopt voluntary guidance about how to meet the act's national election administration requirements before the states actually had to meet them. The idea was to give states the opportunity to review the federal guidance before finalizing their actions on the requirements.¹⁴¹ Subsequent legislative proposals have similarly called for new national election administration requirements and EAC guidance about how to meet them.¹⁴² How might deadlines be set in such proposals to give the EAC time to research and adopt meaningful guidance and the states time to make best use of it? Are there additional conditions that might need to be set—or support that might need to be provided—to ensure that the deadlines can be met?

~~Author Contact Information~~

~~Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National Government ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])~~

~~Footnotes~~

1.	For more on HAVA, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Selected Issues for the 2016 Election, by Arthur L. Burris and Eric A. Fischer.
2.	For more on pre-HAVA federal requirements for the conduct of elections, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
3.	Prior to HAVA, Congress had not provided funding to states and localities to help meet national election administration requirements, there was no federal agency wholly dedicated to election administration, and the two federal entities with election administration as core missions—the Office of Election Administration at the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the U.S. Department of Defense—had limited staff, funding, mandates, or all three. Sen. Chris Dodd, "Senate Consideration of S. 565," remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (February 13, 2002), pp. S710-711; Jim Drinkard, "Holes in Punch-Card System Noted Long Ago," USA Today, March 7, 2001.
4.	The new requirements in HAVA set standards to be met by voting systems, such as enabling voters to verify and correct their ballots. They also require first-time voters who register by mail to provide identification and states to offer provisional voting, post certain information at the polls, and create and maintain computerized statewide voter registration systems. For more on the new requirements introduced by HAVA, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview and Selected Issues for the 2016 Election, by Arthur L. Burris and Eric A. Fischer.
5.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 634, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; H.R. 133, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns; and Committee Resolution 115-4, the Committee's Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2018, markup, 115^th Cong., 1^st sess., February 7, 2017 (Washington: GPO, 2017), pp. 2-3.
6.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2018 Annual Report, p. 3, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/EACannualreport_2018.pdf.
7.	HAVA directs the chief election officials of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Guam to establish procedures to select a representative to serve as a local election official for purposes of membership on the Standards Board (52 U.S.C. §20943).
8.	This number is from an EAC estimate of the resources available under an annualized level from the FY2019 continuing resolutions. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, March 18, 2019, p. 5, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/EACFY2020BudgetJustification.pdf.
9.	H.J.Res. 31.
10.	52 U.S.C. §21141. Another U.S. territory, the Northern Mariana Islands, did not have congressional representation when HAVA was enacted. It first elected a delegate to Congress in 2008 (P.L. 110-229). For more on congressional delegates, see CRS Report R40555, Delegates to the U.S. Congress: History and Current Status, by Christopher M. Davis.
11.	Andrew Glass, "Congress Certifies Bush as Winner of 2000 Election, Jan. 6, 2001," Politico, January 6, 2016.
12.	See, for example, The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, pp. 12-14; and R. Michael Alvarez, Stephen Ansolabehere, Erik Antonsson et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1.
13.	See, for example, H.R. 775 and S. 953 in the 107^th Congress.
14.	See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, "House Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295 and H.Con.Res. 508," House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 10, 2002), p. H7838; and Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, "State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act," Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), pp. 516-517, 525. For more on the roles of states and localities in election administration, see CRS Report R45549, The State and Local Role in Election Administration: Duties and Structures, by Karen L. Shanton.
15.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform: Volume 1, hearings, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 27, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 271, 348; and Palazzolo and McCarthy, "State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act," pp. 525-526.
16.	See, for example, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform: Volume 1, pp. 21, 118, 227-228.
17.	See, for example, Sen. Kit Bond, "Senate Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295," remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 16, 2002), p. S10488.
18.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Mark up of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., November 15, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 2.
19.	52 U.S.C. §§21111-21112.
20.	52 U.S.C. §21085.
21.	52 U.S.C. §20508; 52 U.S.C. §20929. For more on the NVRA, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman.
22.	Then-Commissioner DeForest Soaries testified in 2004 that the EAC had established a process for triggering DOJ investigations of suspected HAVA violations and that the DOJ had already entered some related consent decrees. U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., June 17, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 58. For more on the relationship between the EAC and the DOJ, see Robert S. Montjoy and Douglas M. Chapin, "The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?" Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), pp. 627, 632. For more on DOJ action under HAVA, see U.S. Department of Justice, Cases Raising Claims Under the Help America Vote Act, at https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claims-under-help-america-vote-act.
23.	52 U.S.C. 20971. State officials have used similar voting system certification and decertification authority to compel action by local election officials. See, for example, Steven F. Huefner, Daniel P. Tokaji, and Edward B. Foley, From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 2007), p. 64.
24.	~~U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Audits & Resolutions, at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/audits-resolutions/~~.
25.	For more on the federal voting system testing and certification program and on states' decisions formally to adopt some or all of its parts, see the "Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification" section of this report.
26.	Montjoy and Chapin, "The U.S. Election Assistance Commission," pp. 632-634.
27.	The General Services Administration handled some early HAVA funding before the EAC had been set up (52 U.S.C. §20901), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers HAVA funding related to voting and registration access for individuals with disabilities (52 U.S.C. §21021, 52 U.S.C. §21061).
28.	Ellen Nakashima, "Russian Hackers Targeted Arizona Election System," The Washington Post, August 29, 2016.
29.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2018 Annual Report, p. 15.
30.	Multiyear funds are appropriations that are available for more than one fiscal year, and no-year funds are appropriations that are available without fiscal year limitation.
31.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Proposal, hearing, 112^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 17, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 121.
32.	~~U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Inspector General: About the Office, at https://www.eac.gov/inspector-general/~~.
33.	52 U.S.C. §§21131-21134.
34.	For more on the FEC, see CRS Report R44318, The Federal Election Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
35.	~~The General Accounting Office was renamed the Government Accountability Office in 2004. U.S. Government Accountability Office, About GAO, at https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-is/history/~~.
36.	Roy G. Saltman, The History and Politics of Voting Technology: In Quest of Integrity and Public Confidence (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp. 170-172; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf.
37.	The OEA was originally known as the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Montjoy and Chapin, The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, p. 620; Federal Election Commission, Twenty Year Report, April 1995, p. 8, at https://www.fec.gov/resources/about-fec/reports/20year.pdf.
38.	Federal Election Commission, Twenty Year Report, p. 19.
39.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Excellence in Elections: 2016 Annual Report, p. 20, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/EAC_Annual_Report_2016.pdf.
40.	52 U.S.C. §20508.
41.	~~52 U.S.C. §20302; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Studies and Reports, at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports/. For more on UOCAVA, see CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.~~
42.	52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 15-16; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report, January 2005, p. 30; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report, p. 38. For more on the timing of the release of these reports, see the "Setting up the Agency" section of this report.
43.	52 U.S.C. §20981.
44.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Quick Start Guides, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/QSG_Flyer.pdf.
45.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Excellence in Elections: 2016 Annual Report, p. 20.
46.	Federal Election Commission, Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf; Federal Election Commission, Voting Systems Standards Volume I – Performance Standards, April 2002, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/Voting_System_Standards_Volume_I.pdf; Federal Election Commission, Voting Systems Standards Volume II – Test Standards, April 2002, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/Voting_System_Standards_Volume_II.pdf.
47.	~~U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines/~~; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2275, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept. 107-263 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 5.
48.	52 U.S.C. §21081.
49.	52 U.S.C. §20961.
50.	52 U.S.C. §20962.
51.	52 U.S.C. §20961; 52 U.S.C. §20971.
52.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, "EAC Adopts 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines," press release, December 3, 2005, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/VVSG_1.0_Press_Release.pdf.
53.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, "EAC Updates Federal Voting System Guidelines," press release, March 31, 2015, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/EAC%20Updates%20Federal%20Voting%20System%20Guidelines-News-Release-FINAL-3-31-15-website.pdf.
54.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.
55.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, VVSG Version 2.0: Scope and Structure, p. 1, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/VVSGv_2_0_Scope-Structure(DRAFTv_8).pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines 2.0: Principles and Guidelines, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/TGDC_Recommended_VVSG2.0_P_Gs.pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, "Proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 Principles and Guidelines," 84 Federal Register 6776, February 28, 2019.
56.	As noted above, HAVA does set some mandatory standards for voting systems (52 U.S.C. §21081). Those mandatory standards are distinct from the VVSG (52 U.S.C. §§20961-20971).
57.	National Conference of State Legislatures, Voting System Standards, Testing and Certification, August 6, 2018, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voting-system-standards-testing-and-certification.aspx.
58.	The information about state adoption of federal testing and certification requirements that was available on the EAC's website as of May 2019 was last updated in January 2011. At that time, 34 states required use of federally certified voting systems, testing of voting systems to federal standards, or testing by a federally accredited lab. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, System Certification Process, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/system-certification-process-s/. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 39 states required use of some part of the federal testing and certification program as of August 2018, and another 4 made reference in their statutes to federal agencies or standards. National Conference of State Legislatures, Voting System Standards, Testing and Certification.
59.	52 U.S.C. §§21081-21083.
60.	52 U.S.C. §21101.
61.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists, July 2005, pp. 6-7, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdf.
62.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, "Proposed Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists," 70 Federal Register 20114-20116, April 18, 2005.
63.	52 U.S.C. §20927; U.S. Congress, House, Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, prepared by Clerk of the House of Representatives, 116^th Cong., January 11, 2019, pp. 7-8; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Standing Rules of the Senate, 113^th Cong., 1^st sess., November 4, 2013, S.Doc. 113-18 (Washington: GPO, 2013), p. 26.
64.	See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, "House Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295 and H.Con.Res. 508," House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 10, 2002), p. H7838.
65.	See, for example, Sen. John McCain, "Senate Consideration of S. 565, Consideration and Passage of H.R. 3295 with Amendments, and Return to the Calendar of S. 565. Senate Insistence on Its Amendments to H.R. 3295, Request for a Conference, and Appointment of Conferees," remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (April 11, 2002), p. S2527.
66.	U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector, January 6, 2017, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical. For more on the critical infrastructure designation, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure, by Eric A. Fischer. For more on the EAC's role in the Election Infrastructure Subsector, see the "The Agency's Role in Federal Election Security Efforts" section of this report.
67.	52 U.S.C. §20923.
68.	Two of the original members of the commission were appointed to two-year terms rather than four-year terms to allow for staggering of member tenures (52 U.S.C. §20923).
69.	52 U.S.C. §20923.
70.	52 U.S.C. §20928. The structure of the EAC's commission and its quorum requirement are similar to those of the FEC. Both agencies' commissions have an even number of members, no more than half of whom may share a party and a majority of whose votes are required for certain types of action. For more on the structure of the FEC's commission, see CRS Report R45160, Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking Quorum, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett.
71.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Organizational Management Policy Statement, p. 2.
72.	The "Debate About the Permanence of the Agency" section of this report describes delays that occurred because the commission did not have enough members for a policymaking quorum. Because the commission is bipartisan and has an even number of members, there is also potential for the commission not to approve action when it does have enough members for a quorum. In 2006, for example, the commission deadlocked 2-2 along party lines over whether to change the state instructions on Arizona's version of the federal mail voter registration form to reflect state voters' approval of a proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. Jennifer Nou, "Sub-Regulating Elections," The Supreme Court Review, vol. 2013, no. 1 (January 2014), pp. 139-141.
73.	52 U.S.C. §20924.
74.	52 U.S.C. §20924.
75.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Organizational Management Policy Statement, p. 2.
76.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report, p. 7; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification, February 1, 2010, p. 5, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/157.PDF; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Justification, February 9, 2016, p. 5, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY_2017_CBJ_Feb_9_2016_FINAL.pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 5.
77.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and For Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 4818, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., November 20, 2004, H.Rept. 108-792 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 1452; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 3058, 109^th Cong., 1^st sess., November 18, 2005, H.Rept. 109-307 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 284-285. The EAC indicated in a 2007 oversight hearing that, due to misunderstandings about FTE classifications, staffing exceeded the cap during this period. U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., August 2, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 178.
78.	House Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Proposal, p. 2.
79.	52 U.S.C. §20942; 52 U.S.C. §20962.
80.	52 U.S.C. §20924.
81.	52 U.S.C. §20987; 52 U.S.C. §20924; 52 U.S.C. §20971.
82.	The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks and the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers merged to form the International Association of Government Officials. Doug Chapin, "Fewer Letters in the Alphabet Soup: NACRC, IACREOT to Merge," Election Academy, July 7, 2015~~, at http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to-merge/~~.
83.	Two are appointed by each of the Election Center, the International Association of Government Officials, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Secretaries of State, NASED, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, and the United States Conference of Mayors (52 U.S.C. §20944).
84.	They are the Director of the U.S. Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program, the Chief of the DOJ's Office of Public Integrity or the Chief's designee, the Chief of the Voting Section of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division or the Chief's designee, two appointees of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and two appointees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (52 U.S.C. §20944).
85.	52 U.S.C. §20944.
86.	HAVA directs the chief election officials of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Guam to establish procedures to select a representative to serve as a local election official for purposes of membership on the Standards Board (52 U.S.C. §20943).
87.	Three of the original members of the Executive Board were limited to one term and three were limited to two terms to allow for staggering of member tenures (52 U.S.C. §20943).
88.	52 U.S.C. §20961.
89.	5 U.S.C. app. §8G. For more on inspectors general, see CRS Report R45450, Statutory Inspectors General in the Federal Government: A Primer, by Kathryn A. Francis.
90.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Audits & Resolutions. The EAC can also use suspension and debarment procedures to limit access to future EAC grants or payments by grantees who handle funds improperly. 2 C.F.R. §5800.
91.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, EAC Management Decision: Resolution of the OIG Audit Report on the Administration of Grant Funds Received Under the Help America Vote College Program by Project Vote, November 24, 2010, p. 3, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/Final%20EAC%20Management%20Decision%20Project%20Vote%20E-HP-SP-05-10.pdf; House Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Proposal, p. 121.
92.	52 U.S.C. §21004; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Report, pp. 29-30.
93.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Inspector General: About the Office; U.S. Election Assistance Commission Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation: Preparation of the Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation Report, March 2008, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Report%20of%20Investigation%20-%20Preparation%20of%20the%20Vote%20Fraud%20and%20Voter%20Intimidation%20Report.pdf; U.S. Election Assistance Commission Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation: Work Environment at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, March 2010, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Report%20of%20Investigation%20Work%20Environment%20at%20the%20U.S.%20Election%20Assistance%20Commission.pdf.
94.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee Jurisdiction, committee print, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., January 16, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 5.
95.	52 U.S.C. §20930.
96.	Congress appropriated $800,000 to the OEA in FY2004. Approximately $500,000 was reported to be available when the OEA was officially transferred from the FEC to the EAC in April 2004. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 9, 11.
97.	This figure does not include funds designated for NIST, mock election grants, or the Help America Vote College Program.
98.	52 U.S.C. §20923; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, p. 1.
99.	See, for example, House Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 634, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; H.R. 133, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns; and Committee Resolution 115-4, the Committee's Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2018, pp. 2-3.
100.	52 U.S.C. §20923; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, p. 1.
101.	52 U.S.C. §20930.
102.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 108^th Cong., 2^nd sess., June 17, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 52, 54-55, 64.
103.	See, for example, House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, pp. 54-55.
104.	52 U.S.C. §21101; 52 U.S.C. §§21081-21083.
105.	House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, pp. 54-55.
106.	Montjoy and Chapin, "The U.S. Election Assistance Commission," p. 622.
107.	52 U.S.C. §20983; 52 U.S.C. §20986; House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, pp. 52, 59-60.
108.	House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, p. 60.
109.	52 U.S.C. §20923.
110.	52 U.S.C. §20930.
111.	See, for example, Sen. Chris Dodd, "Senate Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295," p. 10501.
112.	~~See, for example, U.S. Congress, House~~ 15 That focus on assistance—in combination with other objectives, such as providing for a range of expert input into agency activities and guarding against partisanship—informed the duties and structure of the agency. Duties In keeping with its positioning as an assistance agency, the EAC’s rulemaking authority is limited. HAVA explicitly restricts the agency’s authority to issue rules, regulations, and other requirements for states or localities to regulations about two duties it transferred to the EAC from the FEC: (1) reporting to Congress on the impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 Electoral Process, August 2001, pp. 12-14, at http://web1.millercenter.org/commissions/comm_2001.pdf; and R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, July 2001, at https://vote.caltech.edu/reports/1 (cited hereinafter as “R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be”). 11 See, for example, H.R. 775 and S. 953 in the 107th Congress. 12 See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, “House Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295 and H.Con.Res. 508,” House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 10, 2002), p. H7838; and Daniel J. Palazzolo and Fiona R. McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), pp. 516-517, 525. 13 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform: Volume 1, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 27, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 271, 348; and Palazzolo and McCarthy, “State and Local Government Organizations and the Formation of the Help America Vote Act,” pp. 525-526. 14 See, for example, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Election Reform: Volume 1, pp. 21, 118, 227-228. 15 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Mark up of H.R. 3295, the Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., November 15, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 2. Congressional Research Service 3 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and (2) maintaining the federal mail voter registration form required by the NVRA.16 That limitation does not mean that the agency has no ability to influence state or local action. The EAC can audit its grantees, for example, and specify how issues identified by audits should be addressed.17 It can revoke certification of voting systems to its voluntary guidelines and accreditation of laboratories to test systems to the guidelines.18 However, its duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities rather than compelling them. Those duties, which are designed for input by a range of elections stakeholders, include administering the grant programs and voting system testing and certification program referenced above. They also include issuing voluntary guidance for implementing certain HAVA requirements, conducting elections research and sharing election administration best practices, and establishing a youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment program. Grant Programs HAVA authorized the first major federal grant programs for election administration, and Congress has established additional grant programs for certain limited elections-related purposes since. The EAC has been charged with administering or helping administer the funding Congress has provided for most of those grant programs, including funding for  Meeting election administration requirements. Title III of HAVA set requirements for the administration of federal elections, including for voting systems, provisional voting, voting information, and voter registration.19 Meeting those requirements involved significant financial investments for many HAVA states, and Congress authorized a requirements payments program primarily to help cover those costs. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which set new requirements for the voting and registration processes available to military and overseas voters, authorized additional funding for the grant program to help HAVA states meet its requirements.20  Making general improvements to election administration. The problems with the administration of the 2000 elections varied by state.21 HAVA authorized a general improvements grant program to help each HAVA state22 make the improvements to 16 52 U.S.C. §20508; and 52 U.S.C. §20929. For more on the NVRA, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman. 17 52 U.S.C. §21142. EAC, Audits & Resolutions, at https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/audits-resolutions/. 18 52 U.S.C. §20971. State officials have used similar voting system certification and decertification authority to compel action by local election officials. See, for example, Steven F. Huefner, Daniel P. Tokaji, and Edward B. Foley, From Registration to Recounts: The Election Ecosystems of Five Midwestern States (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, 2007), p. 64. 19 52 U.S.C. §§21081-21083. 20 The MOVE Act was enacted as Subtitle H of Title V of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84). For more on UOCAVA and the MOVE Act, see CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues, by R. Sam Garrett. 21 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be; and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d023.pdf. 22 Some recent appropriations measures that have provided funding under this grant program have extended eligibility for the funding to CNMI. See, for example, P.L. 117-328. Congressional Research Service 4 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress its election administration processes it considered most pressing.23 Funding under the program was authorized for use in making general improvements to the administration of federal elections and various other specific purposes, including providing voter education and poll worker training, acquiring and updating voting systems, improving the accessibility of polling places, and establishing voter hotlines.24  Replacing lever and punch card voting systems. The punch card voting systems used by some jurisdictions in 2000 contributed to the problems with Florida’s vote count.25 Post-election investigations also identified problems with lever voting machines, such as the potential for levers to jam and the lack of a paper trail that might be used to recover votes cast on a jammed machine.26 Congress authorized a lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program to help HAVA states replace both types of system.  Conducting election technology research. Issues with election technology, such as the unreliability of lever and punch card voting systems, contributed to the problems with the administration of the 2000 elections. In addition to helping HAVA states replace unreliable systems, Congress authorized funding to help develop better alternatives. It directed the EAC, with assistance from NIST, to oversee a voting technology improvements research grant program for researching improvements to election systems and a voting technology pilot program grant program for testing new voting technologies.27  Encouraging youth voter participation and facilitating poll worker recruitment. Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older counterparts,28 and some of the problems with the conduct of the 2000 elections were traced to a shortage of qualified poll workers.29 HAVA authorized grant-making under two EAC programs to try to address one or both of those problems: a mock elections grant program to encourage students and their parents to engage with the elections process, and the Help America Vote College Program to encourage students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use 23 The committee report for the House-passed version of HAVA said that a similar general purpose grant program it would have authorized would “give states the opportunity to direct fund payments to the areas where the resources are most needed. Jurisdictions that want to modernize their voting equipment can use election fund payments for that purpose. Others may have more pressing needs for modernized statewide voter registration systems, or better equipment and training of voters and poll workers.” U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Help America Vote Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 3295, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 34. 24 52 U.S.C. §20901. 25 Brooks Jackson, “Punch-Card Ballot Notorious for Inaccuracies,” CNN, November 15, 2000. 26 See, for example, R. Michael Alvarez et al., Voting—What Is, What Could Be. 27 52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043; and 52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053. The EAC has used funding provided for these grant programs to conduct Accessible Voting Technology, Military Heroes, and Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing and Post-Election Audit initiatives. EAC, Discretionary Grants, at https://web.archive.org/web/20200622235023/https://www.eac.gov/payments-and-grants/discretionary-grants/. 28 Thom File, Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012, U.S. Census Bureau, April 2014, p. 6, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-573.html. 29 See, for example, GAO, Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation. Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress their services.30 For more on the latter program, see the “Help America Vote College Program” section of this report.  Improving the collection of election data. As described in the “Research and Best Practices” section of this report, the EAC collects data from state and local election officials after each regular federal general election. Congress found that the data quality and response rates for early iterations of the survey were lower than expected and established an election data collection grant program to help improve data collection for the November 2008 election.31 For details of the funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each of the above purposes to date, see Table 1. For more on elections grant funding in general, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Federal Role in Elections Funding, by Karen L. Shanton. Table 1. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for EAC Grant Programs (Rounded, as of February 2023) Authorization of Summary of Primary Grant Programs Appropriationsa Appropriationsb Purpose General improvements $325.0 mil ion FY2003:d Making certain general grant programc FY2018: $380.0 millione improvements to election 52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903- administration FY2020: $825.0 mil ione, f 20906 FY2022: $75.0 mil ion FY2023: $75.0 mil ion Lever and punch card $325.0 mil ion FY2003:d Replacing lever or punch voting system card voting systems in replacement grant precincts that used them program in the November 2000 52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906 federal election Election data col ection $10.0 mil ion FY2008: $10.0 mil iong Improving the col ection grant program of data related to the 52 U.S.C. §20981 note November 2008 federal election Requirements payments FY2003: $1.4 bil ion FY2003: $830.0 mil ion Complying with specified programh FY2004: $1.0 bil ion FY2004: $1.5 bil ionj requirements for the 52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008 administration of federal FY2005: $600.0 mil ion FY2008: $115.0 mil ion elections FY2010 and subsequent FY2009: $100.0 mil ion fiscal years: Such sums as FY2010: $70.0 mil ion may be necessaryi FY2011:k 30 HAVA also authorized another initiative to encourage youth voter participation: the Help America Vote Foundation. Some EAC appropriations have been designated for the foundation, but HAVA did not assign the EAC an official role in its operations. Also, although nominees were named to the foundation’s board of directors in July 2004, CRS has not been able to locate additional information about its activities. The White House, “Personnel Announcement,” press release, July 9, 2004, at https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/07/text/20040709-6.html. 31 52 U.S.C. §20981 note. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, House Appropriations Committee Print: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R. 2764; P.L. 110-161), committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., p. 893. Congressional Research Service 6 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Authorization of Summary of Primary Grant Programs Appropriationsa Appropriationsb Purpose Voting technology FY2003: $20.0 mil ion FY2009: $5.0 mil ion Researching improvements research FY2010: $3.0 mil ion improvements to election grant program systems 52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043 Voting technology pilot FY2003: $10.0 mil ion FY2009: $1.0 mil ion Conducting pilot program grant program FY2010: $2.0 mil ion programs to test new 52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053 voting technologies Mock elections grant FY2003: $200,000 FY2004: $200,000l Conducting voter program Subsequent six fiscal FY2005: $200,000l education activities for 52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072 years: Such sums as may students and their parents FY2008: $200,000g be necessary FY2009: $300,000 FY2010: $300,000 Help America Vote FY2003: $5.0 mil ion FY2003: $1.5 mil ion Encouraging col ege Col ege Program Subsequent fiscal years: FY2004: $750,000l students to serve as pol 52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123 Such sums as may be workers and election FY2005: $200,000l necessarym officials to use their FY2006:n services FY2008: $750,000l FY2009: $750,000 FY2010: $750,000 FY2023: $1.0 mil ion Sources: CRS, based on review of the U.S. Code and relevant appropriations measures. Notes: a. Authorized amounts are listed here as they are presented in statutory language. b. Appropriations figures do not account for rescissions or sequestration reductions. c. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) lists the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) as the administrator for its general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs (52 U.S.C. §§20901-20906), but the act names the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) the administrator of that funding for purposes of audits and repayments (52 U.S.C. §21142) and Congress has assigned responsibility for administering recent funding under the general improvements grant program to the EAC. d. The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7) provided $650 mil ion for the general improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs without specifying a distribution of the funds between the two programs. The legislation indicated that some of the funding—not to exceed $500,000—was to be available to GSA for expenses associated with administering the funds. e. The $380 mil ion appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425 mil ion of the $825 mil ion appropriated for FY2020 was provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements accompanying those two appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which the funds could be used. For differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by HAVA and the FY2018 and FY2020 funds, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton. f. This figure includes $425 mil ion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 mil ion from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted use of its HAVA funds to preventing, preparing for, and responding to coronavirus, domestically and internationally, in the 2020 federal election cycle. For other differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by HAVA and the FY2020 and CARES Act funds, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton. Congressional Research Service 7 link to page 22 link to page 22 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress g. Report language accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) indicated that $112,500 of the funding the act provided for EAC Salaries and Expenses was for administrative expenses associated with the election data collection and mock elections grant programs. h. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) authorized GSA to make requirements payments while the EAC was being established but provided for expiration of that authority by the earlier of (1) June 30, 2004, or (2) the end of the three-month period after the appointment of all members of the EAC. i. Appropriations for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were authorized only for complying with requirements established by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 (52 U.S.C. §21001). j. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) indicated that some of this funding—not to exceed $100,000—was to be transferred to GSA for expenses associated with administering the funds. Report language accompanying the act (H.Rept. 108-401) indicated that $750,000 of the funding was for the Help America Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America Vote Col ege Program, and $200,000 was for the National Student Parent Mock Election. k. HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by a certain deadline to return some of the funds they received under the lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program and directed the EAC to redistribute the returned funds as requirements payments. The EAC made some funding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned funds. EAC, Memorandum Re: 2011 Requirements Payments Disbursements, May 13, 2014, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf. l. These figures are from appropriations report language rather than bil text. m. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col ege Program as a whole. Grant-making is one of a number of activities, including developing materials and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122). n. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; P.L. 109- 115) stated that the conferees encouraged the EAC to apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries and Expenses to the Help America Vote Col ege Program. The EAC’s grant programs were not originally designed—and have not historically functioned—as ongoing sources of new elections funding. Congress has returned to some of them on occasion, however, in response to new developments. For example, it has appropriated funding under HAVA’s general improvements grant program for recent fiscal years in response to foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle. The EAC also continues to manage some HAVA grant funding appropriated for previous fiscal years. Most of the funding Congress has provided under HAVA’s requirements payments program and general improvements grant program has been available to states until expended, so the EAC continues to provide technical assistance and receive spending reports for some of those funds.32 HAVA also authorizes the EAC to audit its grantees and, on a vote of the commission, recipients of other grant funding authorized by the act.33 For more on those audits, see the “Office of Inspector General (OIG)” section of this report. Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification States and localities choose the voting systems used in U.S. elections, but the federal government offers some guidance. The first set of voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems was issued 32 See, for example, EAC, 2021 Grant Expenditure Report, October 1, 2020 - September 30, 2021, July 2022, p. 3, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/paymentgrants/expenditures/EAC_2021_Grant_Expenditure_Report_FINAL.pdf. 33 52 U.S.C. §21142. Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 24 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress by the FEC in 1990 in response to the increased complexity—and new problems—introduced by use of computerized systems for vote casting and counting.34 The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), a professional association for state election officials, developed a program to test and qualify voting systems to the FEC’s guidelines.35 Following the reports of problems with voting systems in 2000, Congress transferred the FEC’s and NASED’s responsibilities to the new elections agency it created in HAVA. One of the EAC’s statutory advisory bodies is responsible for helping the agency’s executive director develop draft Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), with technical assistance from NIST.36 The draft VVSG are then made available to the EAC’s other two statutory advisory bodies and the public for review and comment before they are submitted to the commissioners for a vote on adoption.37 The EAC’s commissioners are also charged with providing for testing and certification of voting systems to the VVSG. With input from NIST, which is responsible for monitoring and providing recommendations about voting system test laboratories (VSTLs), the commission accredits and can revoke accreditation of labs to test systems to the VVSG. It also provides for certification, decertification, and recertification of systems to the guidelines.38 The commission has adopted three versions of the VVSG to date: VVSG 1.0 in 2005, VVSG 1.1 in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021.39 The most recent iteration of the guidelines is divided into higher-level principles and guidelines and more detailed information voting system vendors and VSTLs can use to guide development and testing of systems to the high-level principles and guidelines.40 Vendors who are interested in having voting systems federally certified must comply 34 Federal Election Commission, Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, pp. xvii-xviii, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf. 35 EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines/; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001, report to accompany H.R. 2275, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept. 107-263 (Washington: GPO, 2001), p. 5. 36 52 U.S.C. §20961. 37 52 U.S.C. §20962. 38 52 U.S.C. §20961; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. According to the EAC’s voting system testing and certification manual, certification decisions are made by the executive director of the EAC or the executive director’s designee and subject to appeal to an Appeal Authority consisting of two or more commissioners or commission appointees. EAC, Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual, Version 3.0, pp. 38-47, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Testing_and_Certification_Program_Manual_Version_3_020421.pdf. 39 EAC, “EAC Adopts 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines,” press release, December 3, 2005, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170327213819/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/VVSG_1.0_Press_Release.pdf; EAC, “EAC Updates Federal Voting System Guidelines,” press release, March 31, 2015, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170327213732/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/EAC%20Updates%20Federal%20Voting%20System%20Guidelines-News-Release-FINAL-3-31-15-website.pdf; EAC, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission Adopts New Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0,” press release, February 10, 2021, at https://www.eac.gov/news/2021/02/10/us-election-assistance-commission-adopts-new-voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-20. 40 As noted in the “Efforts to Terminate” section of this report, loss of a quorum of EAC commissioners has delayed updates to the VVSG. The divided structure described here was proposed as a way to prevent future delays; authority to adopt and modify the higher-level principles and guidelines was to be reserved to the commissioners, while the more detailed information could be updated by agency staff. That division of responsibilities between the EAC’s commissioners and its professional staff was not ultimately implemented, due to an internal legal opinion questioning its permissibility under HAVA. National Association of State Election Directors, NASED Executive Board Comment on the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, May 3, 2019, at https://www.nased.org/news/2019/5/3/comment-on-the-vvsg; and EAC, Technical Guidelines Development Committee Meeting, September 19, 2019, p. 42, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/EAC09192019VerbatimTGDC%20%282%29.pdf. Congressional Research Service 9 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress with certain requirements, such as providing information about their policies and ownership and agreeing to permit visits to their manufacturing facilities and report certain modifications and malfunctions of their systems.41 Use of voting systems that have been certified to the VVSG is voluntary under federal law. However, states can require federal testing or certification of the voting systems they use, and many have chosen to do so. According to a September 2020 report from the EAC, DC and 37 of the 50 states have made some or all of the federal testing and certification program mandatory under their own state laws.42 Some states have also chosen to require similar testing or certification at the state level of other systems used in elections, such as electronic poll books (e-poll books) used for voter check-in.43 Those nonvoting systems are not covered by the federal testing and certification program, which is limited to voting systems, but the EAC has taken some steps to offer states guidance about them. It launched a partnership with the Center for Internet Security (CIS) in 2020 to pilot a process for testing nonvoting election systems, including e-poll books and election night reporting systems.44 Voluntary Guidance In addition to providing for voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems, HAVA set some requirements voting systems used in federal elections have to meet. Title III of the act requires HAVA states to set uniform standards for what counts as a vote on each type of voting system they use for federal elections. It also requires the voting systems they use in federal elections to satisfy various criteria, including offering voters the opportunity to check and correct their ballots, producing a manually auditable permanent paper record, providing for accessibility to individuals with disabilities and members of language minority groups, and meeting specified error rate standards.45 Title III of HAVA also set requirements for other aspects of the administration of federal elections, including provisional voting, voting information, voter identification, and voter registration. Election officials in HAVA states are required to post certain information at the polls 41 EAC, Manufacturer Registration Application, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Manufacturer_Registration_Application_EAC_001C_0820.pdf. 42 EAC, State Requirements and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Voting System Testing and Certification Program, September 4, 2020, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/State_Requirements_for_Certification09042020.pdf. 43 National Conference of State Legislatures, Electronic Poll Books, October 25, 2019, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx. 44 EAC, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the Center for Internet Security Partner on Non-Voting Election Technology Verification Pilot Program,” press release, June 17, 2020, at https://www.eac.gov/news/2020/06/17/us-election-assistance-commission-and-center-internet-security-partner-non-voting. CIS also operates the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) as part of a collaboration with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council (EIS GCC). Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Election Infrastructure Security Resource Guide, May 2019, pp. 3-4, at https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0531_cisa_election-security-resources-guide-may-2019.pdf. 45 52 U.S.C. §21081. For more on these and other HAVA requirements, see CRS Report R46949, The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): Overview and Ongoing Role in Election Administration Policy, by Karen L. Shanton. Congressional Research Service 10 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress and offer certain voters the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, for example, and HAVA states have to maintain centralized, computerized statewide voter registration databases.46 HAVA reserved decisions about exactly how to comply with the new requirements to the HAVA states but directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance about them.47 The guidance was intended to offer more specifics about how to implement the act’s general mandates. The EAC’s guidance about statewide voter registration databases, for example, indicated that either a “top-down” system, in which a centrally located database is connected to local terminals, or a “bottom-up” system, in which information from locally hosted databases is used to update a central list, is acceptable under the law.48 Research and Best Practices The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA; P.L. 92-225; 52 U.S.C. §§30101-30146) charged the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO; now known as the U.S. Government Accountability Office) with maintaining a clearinghouse of election administration research.49 The 1974 amendment to the act (P.L. 93-443) created the FEC, which inherited the clearinghouse function and assigned it to its OEA.50 HAVA transferred the OEA’s clearinghouse responsibilities—along with its staff and funding—to the EAC.51 The EAC has broad authority under the act to conduct elections research and share election administration best practices, and it has used that authority both to collect data of ongoing interest and to address particular developments.52 The agency includes a section on state elections policies in its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS),53 for example, and has produced resources to help election officials respond to foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, elections effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a reported increase in threats to election workers during and since 2020.54 46 52 U.S.C. §§21082-21083. 47 52 U.S.C. §21085; and 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102. 48 EAC, Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists, July 2005, pp. 6-7, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170328070125/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdf. 49 For more on FECA, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. The U.S. General Accounting Office was renamed the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2004. GAO, 100 Years of GAO, at https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/hundred-years-of-gao. 50 For more on the FEC, see CRS Report R44318, The Federal Election Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. The OEA was originally known as the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Robert S. Montjoy and Douglas M. Chapin, “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?” Publius, vol. 35, no. 4 (Autumn 2005), p. 620; and FEC, Twenty Year Report, April 1995, p. 8, at https://www.fec.gov/resources/about-fec/reports/20year.pdf. 51 52 U.S.C. §§21131-21133. EAC, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170328053335/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf. 52 52 U.S.C. §20981. 53 For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF11266, The Election Administration and Voting Survey: Overview and 2018 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton. 54 See, for example, EAC, Studies and Reports, at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports; EAC, Election Security, at https://www.eac.gov/voters/election-security; EAC, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources, at https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/coronavirus-covid-19-resources; and EAC, Election Official Security, at https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/election-official-security. Congressional Research Service 11 link to page 8 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress HAVA also assigned the EAC some specific research projects. It charged the agency with conducting studies of  military and overseas voting, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD);  human factor research, in consultation with NIST;  mail voter registration and, in consultation with the Social Security Administration (SSA), use of Social Security numbers for voter registration or election eligibility or identification purposes;  electronic voting and the electoral process; and  free postage for absentee ballots, in consultation with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).55 The EAVS also includes congressionally mandated reporting on voter registration and military and overseas voting, in addition to the EAC-initiated section on state elections policies.56 Help America Vote College Program As noted in the “Grant Programs” section of this report, Congress identified challenges with youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment in the 2000 elections. It responded in part by directing the EAC to establish a program to encourage students at institutions of higher education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services. HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct various activities as part of that program, including developing materials, sponsoring seminars and workshops, producing advertisements directed at students, and awarding grants. To date, the agency has primarily used funding appropriated for the program for grant-making.57 Relationship of the EAC to Other Federal Entities Federal agency support for the general administration of elections at the time of the 2000 elections was primarily provided by the FEC’s OEA. Fol owing the enactment of HAVA and transfer of the OEA’s duties, staff, and funding to the EAC, however, the FEC no longer plays a role in election administration. Although the FEC and EAC both work on elections-related issues and share some structural similarities, they have different authorities and mandates—the FEC is a regulatory agency that focuses on campaign finance, while the EAC is a nonregulatory agency that covers election administration—and they do not generally work together. The EAC does work closely with other parts of the federal government, however. Multiple federal agencies are represented on its advisory bodies, and some provide additional assistance with its work. The agency’s Board of Advisors includes representatives of DOD, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance (Access) Board, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), for example, and NIST assists the EAC with some of its research, grant-making, and voting system testing and certification responsibilities. The EAC also provides election administration expertise to other federal agencies directly and through congressional testimony and col aborates with them on responses to election administration developments. Fol owing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) designation of election systems as critical 55 52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986. 56 52 U.S.C. §20508; and 52 U.S.C. §20302. See also EAC, Studies and Reports, at https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports. 57 EAC, Help America Vote College Program, at https://www.eac.gov/payments_and_grants/help_america_vote_college_program. Congressional Research Service 12 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress infrastructure in January 2017, for example, the EAC helped establish and continues to participate in the department’s new Election Infrastructure Subsector (EIS).58 For more on federal involvement in election administration, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett. Structure The EAC consists of an appointed commission, a professional staff led by an executive director and general counsel, an OIG, three statutory advisory bodies, and one agency-created advisory body. Its primary oversight committees are the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and its appropriations are under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.59 The structure of the EAC, like its duties, reflects its emphasis on assistance.60 The agency’s advisory bodies are central to its functioning, with opportunities for input into its guidance, planning, and staffing. Voters are represented on one of the advisory bodies, and state officials, local officials, or their representatives make up some or all of the membership of all four. The EAC was also set up to ensure a range of expert input into agency activities and help guard against partisanship.61 In addition to voters and state and local officials, for example, the advisory bodies include experts in a range of other fields relevant to election administration, from disability access to science and technology. The membership and selection processes for the commission and some of the advisory bodies, as well as a provision that certain actions require approval by a three-vote quorum of the four commissioners, are also designed for partisan balance. Commission The EAC’s commission is designed to have four members, each of whom is required to have elections experience or expertise and no more than two of whom may be affiliated with the same political party. Candidates for the commission are recommended by the majority or minority 58 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector, January 6, 2017, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/06/statement-secretary-johnson-designation-election-infrastructure-critical. For more on the critical infrastructure designation, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure, by Brian E. Humphreys. 59 52 U.S.C. §20927. See also U.S. Congress, House, Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, prepared by Clerk of the House of Representatives, 117th Cong., July 19, 2022, p. 12; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Standing Rules of the Senate, 113th Cong., 1st sess., November 4, 2013, S.Doc. 113-18 (Washington: GPO, 2013), p. 26; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee Jurisdiction, committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., January 16, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 5. 60 See, for example, Rep. Robert Ney, “House Agreement to the Conference Report on H.R. 3295 and H.Con.Res. 508,” House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 10, 2002), p. H7838. 61 See, for example, Sen. John McCain, “Senate Consideration of S. 565, Consideration and Passage of H.R. 3295 with Amendments, and Return to the Calendar of S. 565. Senate Insistence on Its Amendments to H.R. 3295, Request for a Conference, and Appointment of Conferees,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (April 11, 2002), p. S2527. Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 24 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress leadership of the House or Senate and appointed by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.62 HAVA provides for commissioners to be appointed to four-year terms on staggered two-year cycles.63 They may be reappointed to up to one additional term and continue to serve on “holdover” status after their terms expire, pending appointment of a successor. Two commissioners representing different parties are to be chosen by the commission’s membership each year to serve one-year terms as chair and vice chair.64 Action on activities the commission is authorized by HAVA to conduct requires approval by a three-vote quorum of the commissioners.65 That quorum requirement applies to most of the agency’s major activities, from updating the VVSG to promulgating regulations for the NVRA-mandated voter registration reports and federal mail voter registration form to appointing the agency’s statutory officers.66 62 52 U.S.C. §20923. 63 Two of the original members of the commission were appointed to two-year terms rather than four-year terms to allow for staggering of member tenures. 52 U.S.C. §20923. 64 52 U.S.C. §20923. 65 52 U.S.C. §20928. This is similar to the FEC’s commission, which also has an even number of members, no more than half of whom may share a party and a majority of whose votes are required for certain types of action. For more on the structure of the FEC’s commission, see CRS Report R45160, Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking Quorum, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett. 66 The “Efforts to Terminate” section of this report describes delays in EAC action caused by lack of a quorum at the commission. Because the commission is bipartisan and has an even number of members, there is also potential for it not to take action when it does have enough members for a quorum. In 2006, for example, the commission deadlocked 2-2 along party lines over whether to change the state instructions on Arizona’s version of the federal mail voter registration form to reflect state voters’ approval of a proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. Jennifer Nou, “Sub-Regulating Elections,” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 2013, no. 1 (January 2014), pp. 139-141. Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 19 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart (As of FY2023) Source: CRS, based on EAC, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 8, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/cbj/US_EAC_FY_2023_Congressional_Budget_Justification_508_FINAL.pdf. Professional Staff The EAC has two statutory officers—an executive director and a general counsel—who are appointed by the commission with input in the case of the executive director from two of the agency’s advisory bodies. Both the executive director and the general counsel are appointed to four-year terms and eligible for reappointment.67 HAVA authorizes the executive director of the EAC to hire other professional staff (see Figure 1 for an organizational chart of the agency as of FY2023).68 As a matter of agency policy, the executive director is also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the EAC, including preparing policy recommendations for consideration by the commissioners, implementing adopted policies, and handling administrative affairs.69 The size of the EAC’s staff has varied, from the four commissioners and handful of transfers from OEA in FY2004 to 50 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in FY2010, about 25 to 30 FTEs between FY2013 and FY2020, and 46 FTEs in FY2021.70 The number of FTEs at the 67 52 U.S.C. §20924. 68 52 U.S.C. §20924. 69 EAC, Organizational Management Policy Statement, February 24, 2015, p. 2, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/EAC%20Organizational%20Management%20Policy%20Statement%20-%20Adopted%202-24-15.pdf. 70 EAC, Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report, January 2005, p. 7, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/FY_2004_Annual_Report.pdf; EAC, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification, Congressional Research Service 15 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress agency was capped at 22 in FY2005 and 23 in FY2006.71 The cap was lifted for FY2007 and, as of this writing, has not been reinstated.72 Advisory Bodies HAVA provided for three advisory bodies for the EAC: the Board of Advisors, the Standards Board, and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). In 2021, the EAC used its own authority to add a fourth advisory body, the Local Leadership Council (LLC).73 Board of Advisors The EAC’s Board of Advisors is charged with reviewing draft VVSG and voluntary guidance before they are presented to the agency’s commissioners for a vote on adoption.74 HAVA directs the board to appoint a search committee in the event of a vacancy for executive director of the EAC and the commissioners to consider the candidates the search committee recommends.75 The commissioners are also supposed to consult with the board on research, program goals, and long-term planning, and NIST is supposed to consult with it on monitoring and review of VSTLs.76 The Board of Advisors was designed by HAVA to have 37 members, but its membership dropped to 35 with the 2016 merger of two of the organizations responsible for appointing its members.77 February 1, 2010, p. 5, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170328074236/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/157.PDF; EAC, Fiscal Year 2015 Interim Congressional Budget Justification, March 10, 2014, p. 5, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/FY_2015_CBJ_March_4,_2014_FINAL.pdf; EAC, Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Justification, February 9, 2016, p. 5, at https://web.archive.org/web/20171221003454/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY_2017_CBJ_Feb_9_2016_FINAL.pdf; EAC, Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, February 12, 2018, p. 4, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/FY_2019_CBJ_Feb_12_2018_FINAL.pdf; EAC, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 5, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/EACFY2020BudgetJustification.pdf; EAC, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Justification, February 10, 2020, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/EACFY2021CBJ.pdf; and EAC, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3. 71 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and For Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 4818, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., November 20, 2004, H.Rept. 108-792 (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 1452; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.R. 3058, 109th Cong., 1st sess., November 18, 2005, H.Rept. 109-307 (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 284-285. The EAC indicated in a 2007 oversight hearing that, due to misunderstandings about FTE classifications, staffing exceeded the cap during this period. U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., August 2, 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 178. 72 U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Proposal, hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 17, 2011 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 2. A bill introduced in the 117th Congress, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (H.R. 8528), would have amended HAVA to cap the number of FTEs at the EAC and its OIG. 73 EAC, Local Leadership Council, at https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/local-leadership-council. 74 52 U.S.C. §20942; and 52 U.S.C. §20962. 75 52 U.S.C. §20924. 76 52 U.S.C. §20987; 52 U.S.C. §20924; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. 77 The National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Clerks and the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers merged to form the International Association of Government Officials. Doug Chapin, “Fewer Letters in the Alphabet Soup: NACRC, IACREOT to Merge,” Election Academy, July 7, 2015, at http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to- Congressional Research Service 16 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Sixteen members of the board are appointed by organizations that represent state and local officials,78 and seven represent federal entities.79 Four members are science and technology experts, who are each appointed by the majority or minority leadership of the House or Senate. The remaining eight members of the board represent voters, with two appointed by each of the chairs and ranking members of the EAC’s two primary oversight committees. The overall membership of the board is supposed to be bipartisan and geographically representative.80 Standards Board HAVA assigned the Standards Board and its nine-member Executive Board the same duties as the Board of Advisors. Like the Board of Advisors, the full Standards Board is responsible for reviewing draft voluntary guidance and VVSG; appointing a search committee in the event of a vacancy for the executive director; consulting with the commission on research, program goals, and long-term planning; and consulting with NIST on monitoring and review of VSTLs. The Executive Board is charged with reviewing draft VVSG and making recommendations about them to the full board, as well as carrying out any other duties the full board delegates to it.81 The full Standards Board has 110 members. They include two representatives from each of the 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each pair of representatives includes one state election official and one local election official who are not affiliated with the same political party. State election officials are chosen for membership on the board by their state’s chief election official, and local officials are selected according to a process overseen by the chief state election official.82 The nine members of the Executive Board are appointed to two-year terms by the full membership of the Standards Board. Executive Board members may serve no more than three consecutive terms, and no more than five Executive Board members may be either state officials, local officials, or members of the same political party.83 Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) The 15-member TGDC is charged with helping the executive director of the EAC develop the VVSG.84 That has tended to involve working with NIST to draft guidelines for consideration by the other two statutory advisory bodies, the public, and the commission. The director of NIST serves as chair of the TGDC and, in collaboration with the EAC’s commissioners, appoints its other 14 members. Appointees to the TGDC must include an equal merge/. 78 Two of the state and local representatives are appointed by each of the Election Center, the International Association of Government Officials, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Secretaries of State, NASED, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, and the United States Conference of Mayors. 52 U.S.C. §20944. 79 The federal representatives are the director of DOD’s Federal Voting Assistance Program, the chief of DOJ’s Office of Public Integrity or the chief’s designee, the chief of the Voting Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division or the chief’s designee, and two members appointed by each of the Access Board and USCCR. 52 U.S.C. §20944. 80 52 U.S.C. §20944. 81 52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20943. 82 52 U.S.C. §20943. 83 Three of the original members of the Executive Board were limited to one term and three were limited to two terms to allow for staggering of member tenures. 52 U.S.C. §20943. 84 52 U.S.C. §20961. Congressional Research Service 17 link to page 8 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress number of members of the Board of Advisors, Standards Board, and Access Board; one representative of each of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); two representatives of NASED who do not serve on the Board of Advisors or Standards Board and do not share a political party; and other experts in voting system-related science and technology.85 Local Leadership Council (LLC) The LLC was established by the EAC in 2021 to provide input into the agency’s work, such as by offering recommendations and sharing experiences and best practices.86 A primary motivation for creating the council, according to agency leadership, was to help the EAC build direct relationships with local election officials.87 The council consists of two local election officials from each of the 50 states. Where applicable, the members are supposed to be current or former leaders of professional associations for local election officials in their states.88 Office of Inspector General (OIG) The EAC is required to have an OIG under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by HAVA (IG Act; P.L. 95-452; 5 U.S.C. app.).89 As noted in the “Grant Programs” section of this report, the EAC’s OIG audits its grantees and refers issues identified in audits to agency management for resolution.90 In one instance, for example, the OIG determined that a grantee could not document certain grant expenses, and the grantee was required to return some of its grant funds.91 The EAC’s OIG also conducts internal audits and investigations of the agency itself. That includes regular reporting on the EAC’s management challenges and compliance with federal laws, such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA; P.L. 113-283; 44 U.S.C. §§3551-3559). It also includes audits of the EAC’s finances and investigation of complaints about fraud, waste, mismanagement, or abuse at the agency, such as a 2008 investigation of alleged political bias in preparation of an EAC report about voter fraud and intimidation, a 2010 investigation of complaints about the agency’s work environment, and a 2015 investigation of reports of disbursement of expired grant funds.92 85 52 U.S.C. §20961. 86 EAC, Local Leadership Council, at https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/local-leadership-council. 87 EAC, 2022 Board of Advisors Annual Meeting, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0wjZD1l4E. 88 EAC, Charter of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Local Leadership Council, p. 2, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/LLC/EAC_Local_Leadership_Council_Charter.pdf. 89 5 U.S.C. app. §8G. For more on inspectors general, see CRS Report R45450, Statutory Inspectors General in the Federal Government: A Primer, by Ben Wilhelm. 90 EAC, Audits & Resolutions. The EAC can also use suspension and debarment procedures to limit access to future EAC grants or payments by certain grantees who handle funds improperly. 2 C.F.R. §5800. 91 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, EAC Management Decision: Resolution of the OIG Audit Report on the Administration of Grant Funds Received Under the Help America Vote College Program by Project Vote, November 24, 2010, p. 3, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170328070206/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/Final%20EAC%20Management%20Decision%20Project%20Vote%20E-HP-SP-05-10.pdf; and Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Election Assistance Commission Operations and 2012 Budget Proposal, p. 121. 92 EAC Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation: Preparation of the Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation Congressional Research Service 18 link to page 25 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress History Implementation of the EAC has sometimes deviated in practice from the plan for the agency set out in HAVA. The first commissioners were not appointed on the timeline specified by the act, for example, which contributed to failures to meet other statutory deadlines. Interpretations of the plan for the agency—and views about whether to change it—have also differed among Members and in response to new developments. Some have seen the EAC as a temporary fix for a short-term problem, for example, while others have viewed it as a permanent fixture in federal elections work. Recent developments in the election administration landscape, such as foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, have suggested potential new functions for the agency. As a result, the role of the EAC and congressional perspectives on its role have varied over the course of the agency’s history, from its initial setup in the wake of the 2000 elections to its participation in the federal response to more recent developments. Initial Setup HAVA called for members to be appointed to the EAC’s commission by February 2003, but the first four commissioners did not take office until December.93 The act also authorized up to $10 million in operational funding for the agency for each of FY2003 through FY2005, but, with no commissioners in place for FY2003 or the start of FY2004, Congress appropriated significantly less than the authorized ceiling for the first two of those fiscal years (see Table 2 for details).94 The delay in appointing commissioners and limited early funding for the agency contributed to the EAC missing statutory deadlines for conducting research and issuing voluntary guidance. Work on the agency’s voting system testing and certification program also started later than anticipated. Those developments had practical implications. As set out in HAVA, the deadlines for the EAC to release voluntary guidance for implementing the act’s Title III requirements preceded the deadlines for states to start meeting the requirements.95 In theory, that would have enabled states to use the guidance to inform their implementation of the requirements.96 In practice, the commissioners took office nearly a month-and-a-half after the first set of guidance was due and less than three weeks before states were supposed to start meeting requirements.97 Report, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/1/Report%20of%20Investigation%20-%20Preparation%20of%20the%20Vote%20Fraud%20and%20Voter%20Intimidation%20Report.pdf; EAC OIG, Report of Investigation: Work Environment at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/1/Report%20of%20Investigation%20Work%20Environment%20at%20the%20U.S.%20Election%20Assistance%20Commission.pdf; and EAC OIG, Redacted Report of Investigation: Misconduct – Election Assistance Commission, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/Redacted%20Report%20of%20Investigation%20-%20ADA.pdf. 93 52 U.S.C. §20923. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, p. 1, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/FY_2003_Annual_Report.pdf. 94 52 U.S.C. §20930. 95 52 U.S.C. §21101; and 52 U.S.C. §§21081-21083. 96 Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, pp. 53-54. 97 Montjoy and Chapin, “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?” p. Congressional Research Service 19 link to page 25 link to page 25 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress The EAC’s voting system testing and certification program is also intended to help inform state and local choices of voting systems. However, states that were planning to use HAVA’s lever and punch card voting system replacement grant funding to upgrade their systems after the 2000 elections had to either replace all of their lever and punch card machines by the regular federal general election in November 2004 or return some of the funds.98 They could apply for an extension of that deadline to the first election after January 1, 2006—which was ultimately further extended to the first election after November 1, 2010—but VVSG 1.0 was not adopted until December 2005 and the first system was not certified to the guidelines until February 2009.99 Efforts to Terminate As of the beginning of the 112th Congress, the EAC had distributed most of the grant funding it was authorized by HAVA to administer and completed much of the research the act directed it to conduct. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) had recently renewed a resolution—first adopted in 2005 and subsequently approved again in 2015—that called for disbanding the agency.100 The authorization of operational funding for the EAC had expired, and the agency’s OIG reported ongoing issues with its performance management, information security, work environment, records management, and overhead expenses.101 Those developments were taken by some as evidence that the agency had outlived its usefulness.102 Members introduced legislation to terminate the EAC in each of the 112th through 115th Congresses, and the House Appropriations Committee recommended cutting or eliminating its funding each fiscal year between FY2012 and FY2018.103 For details of those funding recommendations, see Table 2 and Table 3. 622. 98 52 U.S.C. §20902. 99 EAC, “EAC Adopts 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines,” at https://web.archive.org/web/20170327213819/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/VVSG_1.0_Press_Release.pdf; and Brennan Center for Justice, Voting System Failures: A Database Solution, 2010, p. 8, at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-system-failures-database-solution. According to information available on the EAC’s website, it appears as if only one other system was certified before November 1, 2010. EAC, Certified Voting Systems, at https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/certified-voting-systems. 100 National Association of Secretaries of State, Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, July 12, 2015, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf. 101 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Testimony of Curtis W. Crider, Inspector General, Before the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 2, 2011, pp. 6, 9. 102 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 94, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Prohibit the Use of Public Funds for Political Party Conventions; H.R. 95, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns and Party Conventions; H.R. 1994, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; Committee Resolution Dismissing the Election Contest in CA-43; and Committee Resolution Dismissing the Election Contest in TN-9, 113th Cong., 1st sess., June 4, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013), pp. 6-7, 54. 103 Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act (H.R. 672, 112th Congress); To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission (H.R. 260, 113th Congress); Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 1994, 113th Congress); Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 195, 114th Congress); and Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 634, 115th Congress). Congressional Research Service 20 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2003 to FY2013 Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, as indicated ($ millions) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Request — 10.0 10.0 14.8 12.0 12.2 12.7 13.3 13.6 10.5 8.8 Houseb — 5.0 12.5 13.1 12.0 12.2 12.9 13.4 12.7 5.2 4.4 Senateb — c 7.0 9.9 12.1 12.2 12.7 13.3 13.6 11.5 8.8 Enacted 2.0 1.2a 10.8 11.4 11.3 12.3 12.9 13.4 13.1 8.8 8.8 Sources: CRS, based on data from the President’s budget requests and relevant appropriations measures. Notes: Figures are from appropriations for the EAC’s Salaries and Expenses account, including funds designated for the agency’s Office of Inspector General. They are rounded and do not reflect rescissions, sequestration reductions, or funds designated for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, mock election grants, or the Help America Vote Col ege Program. As such, the amounts in this table may not match total figures provided in appropriations measures or other budget documents. a. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) provided $800,000 in funding for the Federal Election Commission’s Office of Election Administration (OEA). The act indicated that any of that funding OEA had left when its staff and functions were transferred to the EAC should also be transferred to the EAC. b. Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed bil and regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-reported measures. c. The Senate-passed bil did not include a separate account for EAC Salaries and Expenses. It would have provided $1.5 bil ion for EAC-administered grants under a general EAC account but did not designate a specific portion of the funds for EAC operations. Table 3. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2014 to FY2023 Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, as indicated ($ millions) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Request 8.3 8.1 8.1 8.3 7.7 7.7 8.1 11.6 21.3 28.6 Housea 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.9 5.5 8.6b 12.5 17.6 21.3 28.6 Senatea 8.3 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.7 7.7 8.1 11.3 18.5 20.5 Enacted 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.6 8.0 11.3 15.5 18.5 25.5 Sources: CRS, based on data from the President’s budget requests and relevant appropriations measures. Notes: Figures are from appropriations for the EAC’s Salaries and Expenses account, including funds designated for the agency’s Office of Inspector General. They are rounded and do not reflect rescissions, sequestration reductions, or funds designated for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, mock election grants, the Help America Vote Col ege Program, or agency relocation expenses. As such, the amounts in this table may not match total figures provided in appropriations measures or other budget documents. a. Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed bil and regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-reported measures with the fol owing exceptions: the Senate figure for FY2015 is from the subcommittee bil , and the Senate figures for FY2018, FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023 are from the committee chairman’s draft. b. This figure reflects the level in House-passed bil H.R. 6147. The House subsequently passed other bil s that would have provided other levels of funding for the EAC. Congressional Research Service 21 link to page 27 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress The Senate also stopped confirming—and some congressional leaders stopped recommending—nominees to the agency’s commission.104 The commission lost the numbers required for a quorum in December 2010 and both of its remaining members in December 2011 (see Figure 2 for details).105 The Senate, some of whose Members cited opposition to the existence of the agency rather than to individual nominees, did not confirm any new commissioners until December 2014.106 Without a quorum, the commission could not take official action. One notable consequence was that it could not update the VVSG.107 The creation of the EAC was partly a response to the FEC’s failure to keep its voting system guidelines up to date.108 However, the lack of a quorum between December 2010 and the swearing in of the newly confirmed commissioners in January 2015 left a nearly decade-long gap between the EAC’s adoption of VVSG 1.0 in 2005 and its first update in 2015.109 104 Amanda Becker, “The Phantom Commission,” Roll Call, October 31, 2012, at https://rollcall.com/2012/10/31/the-phantom-commission/. 105 EAC, Statement of Gracia M. Hillman on the Occasion of her Resignation as Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, December 6, 2010, at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/GH%20Statement_12_06_10.pdf; and EAC, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7, at https://web.archive.org/web/20170328053540/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY-2012-EAC-Activities-Report-Website-Scanned.pdf. 106 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Hearings and Markups Before the Committee on Rules and Administration, hearings and markups, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 29, 2011, S.Hrg. 112-770 (Washington: GPO, 2014), p. 18. 107 Another consequence was that the EAC could not appoint statutory officers. That left it without a permanent executive director or general counsel after the then-officeholders resigned in November 2011 and May 2012, respectively. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7. 108 House Committee on Science, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001, pp. 5-6. The Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001 (H.R. 2275) proposed establishing a commission to develop voluntary voting system standards and consult on accreditation of voting system test labs. The bill was largely incorporated into HAVA. Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, p. 54. 109 A second quorum-less period led to another delay in updating the VVSG. The commission was without a quorum from the departure of one of its members in March 2018 until two new commissioners took office in February 2019. A pending update to the VVSG, which had previously been slated for release in 2018, was pushed back. EAC, Commissioners Hovland, Palmer Sworn in to Restore Quorum at EAC, February 6, 2019, at https://www.eac.gov/news/2019/02/06/commissioners-hovland-palmer-sworn-in-to-restore-quorum-at-eac/; EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 17 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners Sources: CRS, based on data from the EAC and Congress.gov. Response to Recent Developments Recent election cycles have seen a number of high-profile developments, including efforts by foreign actors to interfere in the 2016 elections, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, and an increase in reports of threats to election workers during and after 2020.110 The EAC has played a role in the federal response to each of those developments. Perhaps most prominently, it has administered elections grants. Congress responded to foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in part with funding under HAVA’s general improvements grant program, and it charged the EAC with administering the funds.111 The agency has also provided nonfinancial resources. As noted in the “Structure” section of this report, it helped set up and has continued to participate in the EIS.112 Both in that role and independently, it has offered assistance with securing election systems. It has produced resources to help election officials address the cybersecurity threats highlighted by foreign efforts to interfere in elections, for example, as well as the physical threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and both physical and cybersecurity threats to election workers.113 110 See, for example, DHS, “Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security,” press release, October 7, 2016, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national. For more on threats to election workers, see CRS Insight IN11831, Election Worker Safety and Privacy, by Sarah J. Eckman and Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10781, Overview of Federal Criminal Laws Prohibiting Threats and Harassment of Election Workers, by Jimmy Balser. 111 For more on the HAVA funding Congress has provided in response to recent developments, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Federal Role in Elections Funding, by Karen L. Shanton. 112 EAC, 2018 Annual Report, pp. 31-33, at https://web.archive.org/web/20190322203853/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/EACannualreport_2018.pdf. 113 See, for example, EAC, Election Security, at https://www.eac.gov/voters/election-security; EAC, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources, at https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/coronavirus-covid-19-resources; and EAC, Election Congressional Research Service 23 link to page 27 link to page 24 link to page 29 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Supporters of an ongoing role for the EAC have cited its participation in the federal response to recent developments as new grounds to extend or expand it.114 More generally, the focus of debate about the EAC seems to have shifted in the 116th and 117th Congresses from whether there is a role for the agency to what that role should be. Proposed and enacted operational funding for the EAC has increased in recent years over the levels provided in earlier Congresses, for example, and proposals to terminate the agency were not reintroduced in the 116th or 117th Congresses. Legislative Activity One question Congress considered when developing the EAC was whether it should exist as a separate agency at all. That question was also a subject of particular congressional interest in the 112th through 115th Congresses, which saw efforts by some Members to disband the agency. As noted in the “Response to Recent Developments” section of this report, debate about whether there is a role for the EAC seems to have receded in prominence in the 116th and 117th Congresses. There have continued to be questions about exactly what the agency’s role should be, however, including what types of tasks it should perform and how it should operate. Members have introduced legislation on each of the above questions since HAVA’s enactment in 2002, offering proposals related to (1) whether to maintain an election administration agency and, if so, (2) what the agency should do and (3) how it should do it. Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency HAVA only authorized operational funding for the new election administration agency it created for three fiscal years. Some Members took that as an indication that the EAC was intended to be temporary. As described in the “Efforts to Terminate” section of this report, they introduced appropriations measures that would have reduced or eliminated the agency’s funding and authorizing legislation that would have terminated it and redistributed any of its remaining duties to other agencies. Other Members have highlighted benefits of ongoing EAC responsibilities like updating the VVSG and conducting the EAVS and argued that its duties could not be performed as effectively—or much more cost-effectively—by other agencies.115 They have provided for ongoing appropriations for the agency and proposed removing potential ambiguity about its status by reauthorizing its operational funding. Table 4 offers some examples of legislative proposals to terminate or defund the EAC, as well as examples of proposals to extend it. Official Security, at https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/election-official-security. 114 See, for example, Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 634, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; H.R. 133, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns; and Committee Resolution 115-4, the Committee’s Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2018, February 7, 2017, pp. 2-3. 115 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, report to accompany H.R. 672~~, 112^th~~, 112th Cong., ~~1^st~~1st sess., June 2, 2011, H.Rept. 112-100 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 54-56; and U.S. Congress, ~~House~~ Committee on House Administration, Second Semiannual Report on the Activities of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives During the One Hundred Twelfth Congress Together with Minority Views, report, ~~112^th~~112th Cong., ~~1^st~~1st sess., December 30, 2011, H.Rept. 112-360 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 14. Congressional Research Service 24 link to page 30 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Table 4. Selected Legislation Related to Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency Short Title Number Congress Summary of Selected Provisions Election Assistance Commission H.R. 634 115th Would have terminated the U.S. Election Termination Act Assistance Commission (EAC) Election Support Consolidation H.R. 672 112th Would have terminated the EAC and Efficiency Act Enhanced Election Security and S. 4574 117th Would have reauthorized operational funding for Protection Act the EAC Financial Services and General H.R. 5016 113th Would have defunded the EAC Government Appropriations Act, 2015 Freedom to Vote Act S. 2747 117th Would have reauthorized operational funding for the EAC Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov. Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil s in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bil in which they appear. What the Agency Should Do The EAC is the only federal agency dedicated to the general administration of elections. As a result, it has been a common choice of agency for proposals to take new federal action on elections issues. That is especially true of proposals to extend the EAC’s existing duties into new issue areas. HAVA charged the EAC with administering grant programs; issuing voluntary guidance for implementing federal requirements; conducting research and sharing best practices; and providing for voluntary voting system guidelines, testing, and certification. Elections legislation involving those types of tasks, such as bills that would authorize development of voluntary guidelines for e-poll books or grant programs for conducting risk-limiting audits, often assigns them to the EAC. There have also, though, been proposals to assign the agency new types of tasks, including tasks that would expand it beyond its traditional assistance focus. Members have introduced legislation that would direct the agency to set mandatory standards for certain aspects of election administration, for example, or lift the limit on EAC rulemaking in general.116 Table 5 offers some examples from the 117th Congress of legislative proposals to assign the EAC new responsibilities. 116 See, for example, the Election Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 6072). Congressional Research Service 25 link to page 31 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Table 5. Selected Legislation Related to What the Agency Should Do (117th Congress) Short Title Number Summary of Selected Provisions Frank Harrison, Elizabeth H.R. 5008 Would have directed the U.S. Election Assistance Peratrovich, and Miguel Trujil o Commission (EAC) to administer a grant program for Native American Voting Rights establishing and operating state Native American voting Act of 2021 task forces Protect Our Elections Act H.R. 6574 Would have directed the EAC to maintain a database of election service providers that meet specified criteria Restoring Faith in Elections Act H.R. 102 Would have instituted a voter identification requirement, and directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance for implementing it Voter Choice Act H.R. 5500/S. 2939 Would have directed the EAC to establish a program to provide technical assistance and award grants for transitioning to ranked choice voting Voting Access Act H.R. 1343 Would have directed the EAC to set mandatory standards for pol ing place locations and operations Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov. Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil s in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bil in which they appear. How the Agency Should Function How agencies are set up can help determine how effective they are at achieving their intended purposes. As a result, some legislative activity on the EAC has focused less on what the agency does and more on how it does it. Some proposals to change how the EAC works have focused on the structure of the agency. Bills have been introduced to create new EAC advisory bodies or add new members to existing advisory bodies, for example, as well as to prohibit use of operational funding for agency-created advisory bodies other than the LLC. Other bills would make procedural changes. Members have proposed exempting the EAC from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; P.L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. §§3501-3521) to make it easier for the agency to solicit information from election officials, for example, or providing for concurrent submission of its budget requests to Congress to give Members more insight into its resource needs.117 Table 6 offers some examples from the 117th Congress of legislative proposals to change the EAC’s structure or procedures. 117 See, for example, the EAC Improvements Act of 2013 (H.R. 2017) and the Secure America’s Vote Act of 2005 (H.R. 3094). Congressional Research Service 26 link to page 6 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress Table 6. Selected Legislation Related to How the Agency Should Function (117th Congress) Short Title Number Summary of Selected Provisions Accessible Voting Act of 2021 H.R. 2941/S. 1470 Would have established an Office of Accessibility within the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) American Confidence in Elections H.R. 8528 Would have instituted caps on the number of staff at (ACE) Act the EAC and its Office of Inspector General, prohibited the agency from using operational funding for agency-created advisory bodies other than the Local Leadership Council, and adjusted commissioner compensation For the People Act of 2021 H.R. 1 Would have directed the EAC to have a Senior Cyber Policy Advisor For the People Act of 2021 H.R. 1/S. 1 /S. Would have added the Secretary of the U.S. 2093 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Secretary’s designee to the EAC’s Board of Advisors and a DHS representative to its Technical Guidelines Development Committee Voter Empowerment Act of 2021 H.R. 2358/S. 954 Would have repealed the EAC’s exemption from certain government contracting requirements Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov. Notes: The provisions summarized in this table are intended as examples of the types of proposals that have been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil s in this category or even, in some cases, all such proposals in the bil in which they appear. Potential Considerations for Congress Congress has the authority to conduct oversight of the EAC and to legislate on both the agency and election administration more broadly.118 The history of the EAC and related legislative activity suggest some considerations that may be of interest to Members who are weighing whether or how to take action on those authorities.  Adding agency expertise. As noted in the “Overview” section of this report, the EAC was designed in part to provide for a range of expert input into agency activities. However, new developments might call for experience or expertise not contemplated by HAVA. Previously introduced legislation suggests various possible ways to provide for new expertise at the agency if Congress chooses to do so, including adding members to the agency’s advisory bodies, creating new advisory bodies or agency offices, and directing the agency to hire certain staff or consult with certain stakeholders.119 118 See, for example, U.S. Const. art. 1. §4. cl. 1. 119 Each of these options might have its own advantages and disadvantages. Adding new advisory body members provides for additional expert input into agency activities, for example, but might give certain stakeholders more direct access to EAC actions and decisionmaking than some Members might prefer.~~2011), p. 14.~~
113.	National Association of Secretaries of State, Resolution Reaffirming the NASS Position on Funding and Authorization of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, July 12, 2015, at https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf.
114.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Testimony of Curtis W. Crider, Inspector General, Before the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, 112^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 2, 2011, pp. 6, 9.
115.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 94, to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Prohibit the Use of Public Funds for Political Party Conventions; H.R. 95, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns and Party Conventions; H.R. 1994, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; Committee Resolution Dismissing the Election Contest in CA-43; and Committee Resolution Dismissing the Election Contest in TN-9, hearing on H.R. 94, H.R. 95, and H.R. 1994, 113^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 4, 2013 (Washington: GPO, 2013), pp. 6-7, 54.
116.	Amanda Becker, "The Phantom Commission," Roll Call, October 31, 2012.
117.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Statement of Gracia M. Hillman on the Occasion of her Resignation as Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, December 6, 2010; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7, at https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY-2012-EAC-Activities-Report-Website-Scanned.pdf.
118.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Hearings and Markups Before the Committee on Rules and Administration, hearings and markups, 112^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 29, 2011, S.Hrg. 112-770 (Washington: GPO, 2014), p. 18.
119.	Another consequence was that the EAC could not appoint statutory officers. That left it without a permanent executive director and general counsel after the then-officeholders resigned in November 2011 and May 2012, respectively. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7.
120.	House Committee on Science, Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001, p. 6. The Voting Technology Standards Act of 2001 (H.R. 2275) proposed establishing a commission to develop voluntary voting system standards and consult on accreditation of voting system testing labs. The bill was largely incorporated into HAVA. House Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, p. 54.
121.	A second quorum-less period led to another delay in updating the VVSG. The commission was without a quorum from the departure of one of its members in March 2018 until two new commissioners took office in February 2019. A pending update to the VVSG, which had previously been slated for release in 2018, was pushed back. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Commissioners Hovland, Palmer Sworn in to Restore Quorum at EAC, February 6, 2019, at https://www.eac.gov/news/2019/02/06/commissioners-hovland-palmer-sworn-in-to-restore-quorum-at-eac/~~; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines.~~
122.	See, for example, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security," press release, October 7, 2016, at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national.
123.	U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector. For more on the critical infrastructure designation, see CRS In Focus IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure, by Eric A. Fischer.
124.	The funding was appropriated under a provision of HAVA that authorizes payments to states for general improvements to the administration of federal elections (52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20904), but the explanatory statement accompanying the appropriations bill indicated that Congress intended it to be used for enhancing election technology and improving election security. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, "Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to Senate Amendment on H.R. 1625," explanatory statement, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164 (March 22, 2018), p. H2519.
125.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2018 Annual Report, pp. 31-33.
126.	U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2018 Annual Report, pp. 30-35; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 15-16.
127.	See, for example, House Committee on House Administration, Markup of H.R. 634, Election Assistance Commission Termination Act; H.R. 133, to Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns; and Committee Resolution 115-4, the Committee's Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2018, pp. 2-3.
128.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2019, report to accompany H.R. 6258, 115^th Cong., 2^nd sess., June 28, 2018, H.Rept. 115-792 (Washington: GPO, 2018), p. 44.
129.	These proposals have sometimes tracked broader national conversations about election administration policy. For example, during a period when there was particular interest in voter ID requirements, there were a number of proposals to provide EAC-administered federal funding for free ID cards. Following reports of attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections, election security-related proposals have been common. See, for example, H.R. 4844 in the 109^th Congress and H.R. 378 in the 116^th Congress.
130.	U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Certification and Testing of Electronic Voting Systems, hearing, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., May 7, 2007, H.Hrg. 110-13 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 65, 78; CRS Insight IN10715, When an Agency's Budget Request Does Not Match the President's Request: The FY2018 CFTC Request and "Budget Bypass," by Jim Monke, Rena S. Miller, and Clinton T. Brass, p. 2 (available to congressional clients upon request); Jennifer L. Selin and David E. Lewis, Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies, Administrative Conference of the United States, October 2018, pp. 88-89.
131.	See, for example, U.S. Const. art. 1. sec. 4. cl. 1.
132.	See, for example, Sen. John McCain, "Senate Consideration of S. 565, Consideration and Passage of H.R. 3295 with Amendments, and Return to the Calendar of S. 565. Senate Insistence on Its Amendments to H.R. 3295, Request for a Conference, and Appointment of Conferees," remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (April 11, 2002), p. S2527.
133.	For one possible concern about such access, see ~~House~~ Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, August 2, 2007, p. 87; and U.S. Congress, ~~House~~ Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, ~~110^th~~110th Cong., ~~1^st~~1st sess., March 12, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 34-37. Congressional Research Service 27 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 24 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress  Assigning duties. One way to provide for elections-related expertise at the federal level is to add new expertise at the EAC. Another is to draw on other federal agencies. Congress assigned many of the elections responsibilities it established in HAVA to the EAC, but it reserved certain tasks to other agencies or to the EAC in conjunction with other agencies. It charged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with administering HAVA’s disability access grant programs, for example, and NIST with providing the EAC various types of technical assistance. Members contemplating new elections duties that would involve experience or expertise available at agencies other than the EAC might consider whether to take a similar approach or to assert a sole or primary role for the EAC.  Assessing resource needs. The EAC has been described variously as both overfunded and underfunded.120 Developments like the election security threats in recent election cycles have also prompted calls for additional resources for agency operations and for distribution to states and localities through the EAC.121 Congress might choose to consider how the types and levels of funding available for the EAC, agencies like NIST that support the EAC, and EAC grantees align with current resource needs.122 Members who are considering assigning new tasks to the EAC might also consider whether or not to authorize or appropriate additional funding for the new tasks and, if so, whether to provide it as a dedicated funding stream or part of an overall increase in the agency’s operational funding. Various tools might be available to help assess resource needs, including studies of appropriate funding levels, concurrent budget submission, and reporting on available resources.123  Scheduling activity. As noted in the “Initial Setup” section of this report, EAC guidance is intended to inform state and local action. As also noted in that section, however, it has not always served that purpose in practice. Lack of a quorum at the commission and the time required to complete tasks like developing voting system guidelines and manufacturing, testing, and certifying systems to the guidelines have delayed the availability—and reduced the practical utility—of some of the EAC’s guidance. Members who are contemplating assigning the EAC new guidance responsibilities might consider whether to try to account for the potential for such delays. One option might be to build in extra time between EAC deadlines and state or local deadlines. Another might be to condition state or local deadlines on EAC action, by setting the deadline for state or local action for a certain number of months or years after the EAC has issued guidance rather than a specific date.  Considering the quorum requirement. One possible approach to addressing delays in EAC activity caused by lack of a quorum of commissioners is to adjust deadlines. Another might be to try to reduce the potential for quorum-related delays. Some general strategies for doing so might include (1) eliminating the need for a quorum 120 See, for example, the “Initial Setup” and “Efforts to Terminate” sections of this report. 121~~March 12, 2008 (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp. 34-37.~~
134.	For an overview of the federal role in election administration, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
135.	The committee report on a proposal to terminate the EAC states, for example, "It is an open question whether a federal testing and certification program using standards developed under the HAVA system is the best long-term process for supporting voting system quality." House Committee on House Administration, Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, p. 13.
136.	See, for example, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Election Security Resource Library, at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/election-security-resource-library.
137.	See, for example, the "Setting up the Agency" and "Debate About the Permanence of the Agency" sections of this report.
138.	See, for example, Letter from Rep. Steny Hoyer, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Rep. Bob Brady et al. to Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Rep. Nita Lowey, Rep. Tom Graves, and Rep. Mike Quigley, March 19, 2018, at https://web.archive.org/web/20181222200937/https://raskin.house.gov/sites/raskin.house.gov/files/FY%2019%20EAC%20Appropriations%20Letter_0.pdf. 122 HAVA did not explicitly authorize funding for the activities it directed NIST to carry out. However, appropriations measures have consistently directed the EAC to transfer funding or make funding available to NIST for those activities. 123 See, for example, the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act of 2008 (S. 3722, §7), the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2011 (H.R. 108, §112), and the For the People Act of 2021 (H.R. 1/S. 1/S. 2093, §3602). Congressional Research Service 28 link to page 12 link to page 12 The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress  for certain activities, by exempting them from the quorum requirement, and (2) trying to reduce the likelihood of loss of a quorum.124 Options for the latter approach might include structural changes to the commission, such as adding or removing a seat, or procedural changes to the way commissioners are seated, such as revising the roles of the President or congressional leadership in the selection process. Author Information Karen L. Shanton Analyst in American National Government Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 124 See, for example, Edward Perez, “Perspectives from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Public Hearing in Memphis,” OSET Institute, April 12, 2019. See also footnote 40 in the “Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification” section of this report. Congressional Research Service R45770 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED 29 ~~FY%2019%20EAC%20Appropriations%20Letter_0.pdf~~.
139.	For examples of proposals to provide such tools, see S. 3722 in the 110^th Congress and H.R. 108 in the 112^th Congress.
140.	See, for example, Edward Perez, "Perspectives from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Public Hearing in Memphis," OSET Institute, April 12, 2019.
141.	For more on how this worked in practice, see the "Setting up the Agency" section of this report.
142.	See, for example, H.R. 1 and S. 549 in the 116^th Congress.

Short Title	Number	Congress	Latest Status	Summary of Selected Provisions
For the People Act of 2019	H.R. 1	116^th	Passed House	Would establish a National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and direct the chair of the EAC to appoint one of its members
Election Security Act	H.R. 5011	115^th	Introduced	Would have directed the EAC to make grants to states to replace voting systems, improve voting system security, and conduct risk-limiting audits
Voter Registration Modernization Act	S. 1088	114^th	Introduced	Would have established national voter registration requirements, and directed the EAC to make payments to states to help meet them
Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2014	H.R. 5741	113^th	Introduced	Would have directed the EAC to develop best practices for documenting voting system chains of custody
Federal Election Integrity Act of 2012	H.R. 6408	112^th	Introduced	Would have directed states to provide voter ID cards at no charge to individuals who attest they cannot afford a fee, and directed the EAC to make payments to states to help provide the ID cards
Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2009	H.R. 105	111^th	Introduced	Would have permanently reauthorized appropriations for operational funding for the EAC
E-Poll Book Improvement Act of 2007	H.R. 756	110^th	Introduced	Would have directed the EAC to adopt voluntary guidance for electronic poll books and to include electronic poll books in federal testing and certification