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

Updated January 20, 2026 (R45770) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

• Introduction
• Notes on Terminology
• Overview
• Duties
• Grant Programs
• Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and Certification
• Voluntary Guidance
• Research and Best Practices
• Help America Vote College Program
• Structure
• Commission
• Professional Staff
• Advisory Bodies
• Office of Inspector General (OIG)
• History
• Initial Setup
• Efforts to Terminate
• Response to Recent Developments
• Legislative Activity
• Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency
• What the Agency Should Do
• How the Agency Should Function
• Potential Considerations for Congress

Figures

• Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart
• Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners

Tables

• Table 1. Funding Authorized and Appropriated for EAC Grant Programs
• Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2003 to FY2014
• Table 3. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2015 to FY2025
• Table 4. Selected Legislation Related to Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency
• Table 5. Selected Legislation Related to What the Agency Should Do
• Table 6. Selected Legislation Related to How the Agency Should Function

Summary

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency that is charged with helping election officials to improve the administration of elections and voters to participate in the electoral processThe 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 . It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) as

part of Congresspart of Congress’'s response to problems with the administration of the 2000 elections.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 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 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, but HAVA was the first to back its requirements with substantial support. The act authorized grant programs for
electionselection administration and an assistance-oriented elections agency, the EAC. 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 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 EACactivities and guarding against partisanship—informed the duties and structure of the agency. The EAC’'s rulemaking s rulemaking
authority is limited, and its other duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities rather authority is limited, and its other duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities rather
than compelling them. Those duties, than compelling them. Those duties, most of which are designed which are designed to involve opportunities for input from a range of elections stakeholders, include for input from a range of elections stakeholders, include
administering grant programs; providing for voluntary voting system guidelines, testing, and certification; issuing voluntary 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 guidance for implementation of certain HAVA requirements; conducting research and sharing best practices; and establishing
a youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment program.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 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 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 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 agencyits duties, reflects its emphasis on assistance. The agency’'s advisory bodies are central to its functioning, with opportunities 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, 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.local officials, or their representatives make up some or all of the membership of all four.
The EAC was also set up to The EAC was also set up to ensureprovide for a range of expert input into agency activities and a range of expert input into agency activities and to help guard against partisanship. In help guard against partisanship. In
addition to voters and state and local officials, addition to voters and state and local officials, for example, thethe agency's advisory bodies include experts in advisory bodies include experts in a range ofvarious other fields other fields
relevant to election administration. The membership and selection processes for the commission and some of the advisory 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.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 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 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 also a subject of particular congressional interest for a period starting with the 112th112^th Congress. As of the beginning of that Congress. As of the beginning of that
Congress, the EAC had distributed most of the Congress, the EAC had distributed most of the grant funding it was authorized by HAVA to administer and completed much 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 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.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 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 legislation to terminate the EAC in each of the 112th through 115th112^th through 115^th Congresses, and the House Congresses, and the House Appropriations Committee Committee
on Appropriations recommended cutting or eliminating recommended cutting or eliminating itsthe agency's funding each year between FY2012 and FY2018. funding each year between FY2012 and FY2018.
At least as of the At least as of the 116th and 117th Congresses119^th Congress, however, debate about whether there is a role for the EAC seems to have , 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 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 interfere in the 2016 elections and the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (onset of the COVID-19COVID-19) pandemic in the 2020 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, cycle,
and the EAC has played a role in the federal response to those developments. It has administered grant funding Congress has and the EAC has played a role in the federal response to those developments. It has administered grant funding Congress has
providedappropriated in response to some of them, for example, and in response to some of them, for example, and developedprovided election officials with resources to help resources to help election officials address physical and address physical and
cybersecurity threatscybersecurity 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 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 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 Congressessince the 115^th Congress from whether there is a role for the EAC to what from whether there is a role for the EAC to what thatits role should be. 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

Introduction

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent federal agency that is 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 electionscharged with helping election officials to improve the administration of elections and voters to participate in the electoral process. It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. . It was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L.
107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) as part of Congress107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) as part of Congress’'s response to problems with the s response to problems with the
administration of the 2000 elections.administration of the 2000 elections.¹ 1
The EAC—and the legislation that created it—marked something of a shift in the federal 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 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 administration of federal elections, but HAVA was the first to back its requirements with
substantial support.substantial support.22 The act authorized grant programs for The act authorized grant programs for electionselection administration and an assistance-oriented and an assistance-oriented
elections agency, the EAC.elections agency, the EAC.³ 3
There was broad support in Congress during the HAVA debate for the idea of providing some There was broad support in Congress during the HAVA debate for the idea of providing some
assistance along those lines. Both at the time and since, however, opinions have differed about assistance along those lines. Both at the time and since, however, opinions have differed about
exactly what role the EAC should play. exactly what role the EAC should play. For example, Members have disagreed about whether the agency Members have disagreed about whether the agency
should focus solely on assistance or also have regulatory authorityshould focus solely on assistance or also have regulatory authority, for example, and whether it and whether it
should be temporary or permanent.should be temporary or permanent.
Changes in the election administration landscape and in Congress have brought different aspects Changes in the election administration landscape and in Congress have brought different aspects
of the debate to the forefront at different times. The of the debate to the forefront at different times. The 112th through 115th112^th through 115^th Congresses saw attempts Congresses saw attempts
to terminate the agency, whereas recent developments like foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 to terminate the agency, whereas recent developments like foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016
elections and the onset of the elections and the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 pandemic in the 2020
election cycle have been cited as new grounds to extend or expand it.election cycle have been cited as new grounds to extend or expand it.⁴ 4
This report provides an overview of the agency in the context of those changes. It starts by This report provides an overview of the agency in the context of those changes. It starts by
describing the EACdescribing the EAC’'s duties and structures duties and structure, and then summarizes the history of the agency and and then summarizes the history of the agency and
related legislative activity. The report closes by introducing some considerations that may be of related legislative activity. The report closes 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 interest to Members who are weighing whether or how to engage with issues related to the EAC
or to election administration more broadly.or to election administration more broadly.
Notes on Terminology
In this report, In this report, “state”"state" is generally intended to include the District of Columbia (DC) and U.S. is generally intended to include the District of Columbia (DC) and U.S.
territories. Exceptions to that general usage are references to territories. Exceptions to that general usage are references to “"the 50 states,the 50 states,”" which do not include DC or the territories, and references to "HAVA 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 which do not include the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).5
“5 "Election Assistance CommissionElection Assistance Commission”" and and “EAC”"EAC" are sometimes used to refer to the appointed 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 commission that is part of the agency. To avoid confusion, the report reserves those terms for the
agency as a whole and uses agency as a whole and uses “commission”"commission" for the appointed commission. for the appointed commission.

EAC at a Glance
Mission: “"The U.S. Election Assistance Commission The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) helps election officials improve the administration of helps election officials improve the administration of
elections and helps Americans participate in the voting process.elections and helps Americans participate in the voting process.”6
"⁶ Enabling Legislation: Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145) Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252; 52 U.S.C. §§20901-21145)
Commission: Four members recommended by majority and minority congressional leadership and appointed by Four members recommended by majority and minority congressional leadership and appointed by
the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senatethe 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 35 members representing a range of election administration stakeholders, including state
and local officials, federal agencies, science and technology experts, and votersand 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, DC, 110 members, with one state official and one local official from each of the 50 states, DC,
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin IslandsAmerican Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC): 15 members representing a range of election 15 members representing a range of election
administration stakeholders, including the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) administration stakeholders, including the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
as chair, state and local officials, individuals with disabilities, and science and technology expertsas 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 100 members, with two local election officials from each of the 50 states
Personnel (FY2021): 46 ful FY2024): 83 full-time equivalent (FTE) -time equivalent (FTE) positions7
positions⁷ Appropriations for Salaries and Expenses (FY2023): $28.0 mil ionFY2024): $27.72 million, including $1., including $1.5 mil ion25 million to be made to be made
available to NIST for activities authorized under HAVAavailable to NIST for activities authorized under HAVA and $1.0 mil ion for the Help America Vote Col ege
Program8
8 Primary Oversight Committees: Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration
Administration Appropriations Subcommittees: Financial Services and General Government Financial Services and General Government
Overview
The highest-profile problems with the administration of the 2000 elections were in Florida—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 where disputes about the vote count delayed resolution of the presidential race for weeks—but
post-election investigations revealed widespread problems with statespost-election investigations revealed widespread problems with states’' conduct of elections. conduct of elections.9
9 Those investigations also prompted suggestions about how to avoid similar problems in the 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

future, including proposals to increase federal involvement in election administration.¹⁰ Exactly what that involvement should look like was a matter of debate. There was general Exactly what that involvement should look like was a matter of debate. There was general
agreement that it should include some federal assistance to states and localities. agreement that it should include some federal assistance to states and localities. ProposalsFor example, proposals from from
Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress would have authorized Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress would have authorized
election administration grant programselection administration grant programs, for example, and federal guidance about voting systems. and federal guidance about voting systems.¹¹ 11
Members disagreed, however, about other aspects of federal involvement in elections. The Members disagreed, however, about other aspects of federal involvement in elections. The
disagreements were rooteddisagreements were rooted, in part in part, in competing concerns. Some Members worried that certain in competing concerns. Some Members worried that certain
types of involvement would shift the balance of election administration authority from the states types of involvement would shift the balance of election administration authority from the states
and localities that have traditionally run elections to the federal government.and localities that have traditionally run elections to the federal government.1212 Others were Others were
concerned that some states and localities would not—or could not—make necessary changes to concerned that some states and localities would not—or could not—make necessary changes to
their election systems without federal intervention.their election systems without federal intervention.¹³ 13
Disagreements about the proper role of the federal government in elections played out in at least Disagreements about the proper role of the federal government in elections played out in at least
two debates relevant to the EAC: (1) whether any new federal responsibilities should be assigned two debates relevant to the EAC: (1) whether any new federal responsibilities should be assigned
to existing entities like the Federal Election Commissionto existing entities like the Federal Election Commission’'s (FECs (FEC’'s) Office of Election s) Office of Election
Administration (OEA) or Administration (OEA) or to an entirely new agency, and (2) whether the new responsibilities should an entirely new agency, and (2) whether the new responsibilities should
focus solely on supporting states and localities or also include authority to compel them to act.focus solely on supporting states and localities or also include authority to compel them to act.¹⁴ 14
Congress struck a compromise in HAVA by creating a new agency, the EAC, but positioning it as 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 a support agency. As one of the primary architects of HAVA, Representative Robert Ney, noted in
the markup of a 2001 version of the act,the markup of a 2001 version of the act,
[T]he name that we did choose, by the way, for this Commission is not an accident. The [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 election
administration problems, basically taking the attitude we are the government, we are here 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.to help. Its purpose is not to dictate solutions or hand down bureaucratic mandates.¹⁵ 15
That focus on assistance—in combination with other objectives, such as providing for a range of 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 expert input into agency activities and guarding against partisanship—informed the duties and
structure of the agency.structure of the agency.
Duties
In keeping with its positioning as an assistance agency, the EACIn keeping with its positioning as an assistance agency, the EAC’'s rulemaking authority is s rulemaking authority is
limited. HAVA explicitly restricts the agencylimited. HAVA explicitly restricts the agency’'s authority to issue rules, regulations, and other s authority to issue rules, regulations, and other
requirements for states or localities to regulations about two duties it transferred to the EAC from 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

the FEC: (1) reporting to Congress on the impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and (2) maintaining the federal mail voter (NVRA; P.L. 103-31; 52 U.S.C. §§20501-20511), and (2) maintaining the federal mail voter
registration form required by the NVRA.registration form required by the NVRA.¹⁶ 16
That limitation That limitation on rulemaking does not mean that the agency has no ability to influence state or local action. The 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 EAC can audit its grantees, for example, and specify how issues identified by audits should be
addressed.addressed.1717 It can revoke It can revoke the certification of voting systems to its voluntary guidelines and certification of voting systems to its voluntary guidelines and
the accreditation of laboratories to test systems to the guidelines.accreditation of laboratories to test systems to the guidelines.¹⁸ 18
However, its duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities However, its duties are primarily oriented toward facilitating or incentivizing elections activities
rather than compelling them. Those duties, rather than compelling them. Those duties, most of which are designed which are designed to involve opportunities for input for input byfrom a range of elections a range of elections
stakeholders, include administering the grant programs and voting system testing and certification stakeholders, include administering the grant programs and voting system testing and certification
program referenced above. They also include issuing voluntary guidance for program referenced above. They also include issuing voluntary guidance for implementing
implementation of certain HAVA requirements, conducting elections research and sharing election administration certain HAVA requirements, conducting elections research and sharing election administration
best practices, and establishing a youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment program.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 HAVA authorized the first major federal grant programs for election administration, and Congress
has has since established additional grant programs for certain established additional grant programs for certain limited elections-related purposeselections-related purposes since. The . The
EAC has been charged with administering or helping administer the funding Congress has EAC has been charged with administering or helping administer the funding Congress has
provided for most of those grant programs, including funding for provided for most of those grant programs, including funding for
 the following:Meeting election administration requirements. Title III of HAVA set requirements Title III of HAVA set requirements
for the administration of federal elections, including for voting systems, provisional for the administration of federal elections, including for voting systems, provisional
voting, voting information, and voter registration.voting, voting information, and voter registration.1919 Meeting those requirements Meeting those requirements
involved significant financial investments for many HAVA states, and Congress involved significant financial investments for many HAVA states, and Congress
authorized a authorized a requirements payments program primarily to help cover those costs. The primarily to help cover those costs. The
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which set new Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009, which set new
requirements for the voting and registration processes available to military and requirements for the voting and registration processes available to military and
overseas voters, authorized additional funding for the grant program to help HAVA overseas voters, authorized additional funding for the grant program to help HAVA
states meet its requirements.states meet its requirements.20
 20 Making general improvements to election administration. The problems with the The problems with the
administration of the 2000 elections varied by state.administration of the 2000 elections varied by state.2121 HAVA authorized a 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

improvements grant program to help each HAVA state²² make the improvements to its election administration processes it considered most pressing.its election administration processes it considered most pressing.2323 Funding under the Funding under the
program was authorized for use in making general improvements to the program was authorized for use in making general improvements to the
administration of federal elections and various other specific purposes, including administration of federal elections and various other specific purposes, including
providing voter education and poll worker training, acquiring and updating voting providing voter education and poll worker training, acquiring and updating voting
systems, improving the accessibility of polling places, and establishing voter systems, improving the accessibility of polling places, and establishing voter
hotlines.hotlines.24
 24 Replacing lever and punch card voting systems. The punch card voting systems The punch card voting systems
used by some jurisdictions in 2000 contributed to the problems with Floridaused by some jurisdictions in 2000 contributed to the problems with Florida’'s vote s vote
count.count.2525 Post-election investigations also identified problems with lever voting 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 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.might be used to recover votes cast on a jammed machine.2626 Congress authorized a Congress authorized a
lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program to help HAVA states to help HAVA states
replace both types of replace both types of voting system.system.
 Conducting election technology research. Issues with election technology, such as Issues with election technology, such as
the unreliability of lever and punch card voting systems, contributed to the problems 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 with the administration of the 2000 elections. In addition to helping HAVA states
replace unreliable systems, Congress authorized funding to help develop better replace unreliable systems, Congress authorized funding to help develop better
alternatives. It directed the EAC, with assistance from NIST, to oversee a alternatives. It directed the EAC, with assistance from NIST, to oversee a voting
technology improvements research grant program for researching improvements to for researching improvements to
election systems and a election systems and a voting technology pilot program grant program for testing for testing
new voting technologies.new voting technologies.27
 27 Encouraging youth voter participation and facilitating poll worker recruitment.
Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older Young people participated in the 2000 elections at lower rates than their older
counterparts,counterparts,2828 and some of the problems with the conduct of the 2000 elections were and some of the problems with the conduct of the 2000 elections were
traced to a shortage of qualified poll workers.traced to a shortage of qualified poll workers.2929 HAVA authorized grant-making under HAVA authorized grant-making under
two EAC programs to try to address one or both of those problems: a 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 to encourage students and their parents to engage with the elections
process,process and the and the Help America Vote College Program to encourage students at 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.30institutions of higher education to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services.³⁰ For more on the latter program, see the For more on the latter program, see the "“Help America Vote College
Program” Program" section of this report.section of this report.
 Improving the collection of election data. As described in the As described in the "“Research and Best
Practices”Practices" section of this report, the EAC collects data from state and local election 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 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 quality and response rates for early iterations of the survey were lower than expected
and established an and established an election data collection grant program to help improve data to help improve data
collection for the November 2008 election.collection for the November 2008 election.31
31For details of the funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each of the above For details of the funding Congress has authorized and appropriated for each of the above
purposes to date, purposes to date, seesee Table 1.32 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 December 2025)

Grant Programs

Authorization of Appropriations^a Appropriations^b

Summary of Primary Purpose

General improvements grant program^c (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. 52 U.S.C. §§20901, 20903-20906

$325.0 million

FY2003:^d FY2018: $380.0 million^e FY2020: $825.0 million^{e, f}

FY2022: $75.0 million

FY2023: $75.0 million

FY2024: $55.0 million^g FY2025: $15.0 million^g

Making certain general improvements to election administration

Lever and punch card voting system replacement grant program

52 U.S.C. §§20902-20906

$325.0 million

FY2003:^d

Replacing lever or punch card voting systems in precincts that used them in the November 2000 federal election

Election data collection grant program

52 U.S.C. §20981 note

$10.0 million

FY2008: $10.0 million^h

Improving the collection of data related to the November 2008 federal election

Requirements payments programⁱ

52 U.S.C. §§21001-21008

FY2003: $1.4 billion

FY2004: $1.0 billion

FY2005: $600.0 million

FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary^j

FY2003: $830.0 million

FY2004: $1.5 billion^k

FY2008: $115.0 million

FY2009: $100.0 million

FY2010: $70.0 million

FY2011:^l

Complying with specified requirements for the administration of federal elections

Voting technology improvements research grant program

52 U.S.C. §§21041-21043

FY2003: $20.0 million

FY2009: $5.0 million

FY2010: $3.0 million

Researching improvements to election systems

Voting technology pilot program grant program

52 U.S.C. §§21051-21053

FY2003: $10.0 million

FY2009: $1.0 million

FY2010: $2.0 million

Conducting pilot programs to test new voting technologies

Mock elections grant program

52 U.S.C. §§21071-21072

FY2003: $200,000

Subsequent six fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessary

FY2004: $200,000^m FY2005: $200,000^m FY2008: $200,000^h

FY2009: $300,000

FY2010: $300,000

Conducting voter education activities for students and their parents

Help America Vote College Program

52 U.S.C. §§21121-21123

FY2003: $5.0 million

Subsequent fiscal years: Such sums as may be necessaryⁿ

FY2003: $1.5 million

FY2004: $750,000^m FY2005: $200,000^m FY2006:^o FY2008: $750,000^m

FY2009: $750,000

FY2010: $750,000

FY2023: $1.0 million

Encouraging college students to serve as poll workers and election officials to use their services

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 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 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 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 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 assigned responsibility for administering recent funding under the general improvements grant program to
the EAC.the EAC.
d. d. The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7) provided $650 The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7) provided $650 mil ionmillion for the general for the general
improvements and lever and punch card voting system replacement grant programs without specifying a 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 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.to exceed $500,000—was to be available to GSA for expenses associated with administering the funds.
e. e. The $380 The $380 mil ionmillion appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated appropriated under this program for FY2018 was provided by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425 Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141), and $425 mil ionmillion of the $825 of the $825 mil ionmillion appropriated for FY2020 was appropriated for FY2020 was
provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93). Explanatory statements 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 accompanying those two appropriations acts listed some election security-specific purposes for which the
funds could be usedrecipients could use the funds. For differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by . For differences between the general improvements grant program as authorized by
HAVA and the FY2018 and FY2020 funds, see CRS Report R46646, HAVA and the FY2018 and FY2020 funds, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant
FundingPrograms for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton., by Karen L. Shanton.
f. f.
This figure includes $425 This figure includes $425 mil ionmillion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and $400 mil ionmillion from from
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). The CARES Act restricted 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 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 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, grant program as authorized by HAVA and the FY2020 and CARES Act funds, see CRS Report R46646,
Election Administration: Federal Grant FundingPrograms for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton., 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. g. This funding was to be paid from unobligated balances in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. For more information about that fund, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. h. Report language accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) indicated that 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 $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.associated with the election data collection and mock elections grant programs.
h. i. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) authorized GSA to make requirements 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 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 (1) June 30, 2004, or (2) the end of the three-month period after the appointment of all members of the
EAC.EAC.
i.
Appropriations j. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 indicated that appropriations for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were for the requirements payments program for FY2010 and subsequent fiscal years were
authorized only for complying with requirements established by the authorized only for complying with requirements established by the Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009act (52 U.S.C. §21001). (52 U.S.C. §21001).
j.
k. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) indicated that some of this funding—not to 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. 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 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 Help America Vote Foundation, $750,000 was for the Help America Vote Col egeCollege Program, and $200,000 Program, and $200,000
was for the National Student Parent Mock Election.was for the National Student Parent Mock Election.
k. l. HAVA required states that had not replaced all of their lever and punch card voting systems by a certain 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 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 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 payments. The EAC made some funding for requirements payments available for FY2011 from returned
funds. EAC, funds. EAC, Memorandum Re: 2011 Requirements Payments Disbursements, May 13, 2014, , May 13, 2014, at
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf. m. 1/6/
Instructions_for_Requesting_FY_2011_Requirements_Payments_Memo.2014.pdf.
l.
These figures are from appropriations report language rather than These figures are from appropriations report language rather than bil bill text.text.
m. n. The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote The amounts listed here are for the Help America Vote Col egeCollege Program as a whole. Grant-making is one Program as a whole. Grant-making is one
of a number of activities, including developing materials and sponsoring seminars and workshops, that 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).HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct as part of the program (52 U.S.C. §21122).
n. o. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2006 appropriations act (H.Rept. 109-307; ; P.L. 109-P.L. 109-
115) stated that the conferees encouraged the EAC to apply $250,000 of the funding it received for Salaries 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 and Expenses to the Help America Vote Col ege Program.
The EAC’College Program. The EAC's grant programs were not originally designed—and have not historically functioned—s grant programs were not originally designed—and have not historically functioned—
as ongoingas regular sources of new elections funding. Congress has returned to some of them sources of new elections funding. Congress has returned to some of them on occasion,
over the years, however, in response to new developments. For example, it has appropriated funding under however, in response to new developments. For example, it has appropriated funding under
HAVA’HAVA's general improvements grant program for recent fiscal years in response to foreign efforts 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 to interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election
cycle.cycle.
The EAC also continues to manage some HAVA grant funding appropriated for previous fiscal The EAC also continues to manage some HAVA grant funding appropriated for previous fiscal
years. Most of the funding Congress has provided under HAVAyears. Most of the funding Congress has provided under HAVA’'s requirements payments program s requirements payments program
and general improvements grant program has been available to states until expended, so the EAC 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.continues to provide technical assistance and receive spending reports for some of those funds.32
33 HAVA also authorizes the EAC to audit its grantees and, on a vote of the commission, recipients 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.of other grant funding authorized by the act.3334 For more on those audits, see the For more on those audits, see the "“Office of
Inspector General (OIG)” " section of this report.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 States and localities choose the voting systems used in U.S. elections, but the federal government
offersoffers them some guidance. The first set of voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems was issued 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 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.use of computerized systems for vote casting and counting.3435 The National Association of State The National Association of State
Election Directors (NASED), a professional association for state election officials, developed a Election Directors (NASED), a professional association for state election officials, developed a
program to test and qualify voting systems to the FECprogram to test and qualify voting systems to the FEC’'s guidelines.s guidelines.35
36 Following the reports of problems with voting systems in 2000, Congress transferred the FECFollowing the reports of problems with voting systems in 2000, Congress transferred the FEC’s
's and NASEDand NASED’'s responsibilities to the new elections agency it created in HAVA. One of the EACs responsibilities to the new elections agency it created in HAVA. One of the EAC’s
's statutory advisory bodies is responsible for helping the agencystatutory advisory bodies is responsible for helping the agency’'s executive director develop draft s executive director develop draft
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), with technical assistance from NIST.Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), with technical assistance from NIST.3637 The draft The draft
VVSG are then made available to the EACVVSG are then made available to the EAC’'s other two statutory advisory bodies and the public 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.for review and comment before they are submitted to the commissioners for a vote on adoption.37
38 The EACThe EAC’'s commissioners are also charged with providing for testing and certification of voting s commissioners are also charged with providing for testing and certification of voting
systems to the VVSG.systems to the VVSG.³⁹ With input from NIST, which is responsible for monitoring and providing With input from NIST, which is responsible for monitoring and providing
recommendations about voting system test laboratories (VSTLs), the commission accredits and recommendations about voting system test laboratories (VSTLs), the commission accredits and
can revoke accreditation of labs to test systemscan revoke accreditation of labs to test systems for conformance to the VVSG. It also provides for certification, to the VVSG. It also provides for certification,
decertification, and recertification of systems to the guidelines.decertification, and recertification of systems to the guidelines.38
40 The commission has adopted three versions of the VVSG to date: VVSG 1.0 in 2005, VVSG 1.1 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.in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021.3941 The most recent iteration of the guidelines is divided into The most recent iteration of the guidelines is divided into
higher-level principles and guidelines and more detailed information voting system vendors and 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 VSTLs can use to guide development and testing of systems to the high-level principles and
guidelines.guidelines.4042 Vendors who are interested in having Vendors who are interested in having their voting systems federally certified must comply 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 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 agreeing to permit visits to their manufacturing facilities and report certain modifications and
malfunctions of their systems.malfunctions of their systems.41
43 Use of voting systems that have been certified to the VVSG is voluntary under federal law. 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 However, states can require federal testing or certification of the voting systems they use, and
many have chosen to do so. According to many have chosen to do so. According to a September 2020an August 2023 report from the EAC, DC and 37 of report from the EAC, DC and 37 of
the 50 states have made some or all of the federal testing and certification program mandatory the 50 states have made some or all of the federal testing and certification program mandatory
under their own state laws.under their own state laws.42
Some states have also chosen to require similar testing or certification at the state level of44 The EAC also established a new program in 2022 to provide for similar voluntary federal guidelines, testing, and certification for other 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
systems used in elections, in addition to the voting systems covered by the HAVA-mandated VVSG and voting system testing and certification program. The Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program's first major project was a voluntary testing and certification program for the electronic poll books (e-poll books) many jurisdictions use for voter check-in.⁴⁵ Voluntary Guidance In addition to providing for voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems, HAVA set some In addition to providing for voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems, HAVA set some
requirements requirements that voting systems used in federal elections have to meet. Title III of the act requires voting systems used in federal elections have to meet. Title III of the act requires
the HAVA states to set uniform standards for what counts as a vote on each type of voting system 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 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 satisfy various criteria, including offering voters the opportunity to check and correct their
ballots, producing a manually auditable permanent paper record, providing for accessibility ballots, producing a manually auditable permanent paper record, providing for accessibility to
for individuals with disabilities and members of language minority groups, and meeting specified individuals with disabilities and members of language minority groups, and meeting specified
error rate standards.error rate standards.45
46 Title III of HAVA also set requirements for other aspects of the administration of federal 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 elections, including provisional voting, voting information, voter identification, and voter
registration. registration. ElectionFor example, election officials in officials in the HAVA states are required to post certain information at the polls and offer certain voters the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, and the HAVA states have to maintain centralized, computerized statewide voter registration databases.⁴⁷ 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 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.states but directed the EAC to issue voluntary guidance about them.4748 The guidance was intended The guidance was intended
to offer more specifics about how to implement the actto offer more specifics about how to implement the act’'s general mandates. s general mandates. The EAC’For example, the EAC's guidance s guidance
about statewide voter registration databasesabout statewide voter registration databases, for example, indicated that either a indicated that either a “"top-downtop-down”
" system, in which a centrally located database is connected to local terminals, or a system, in which a centrally located database is connected to local terminals, or a “"bottom-upbottom-up”
" system, in which information from locally hosted databases is used to update a central list, is system, in which information from locally hosted databases is used to update a central list, is
acceptable under the law.acceptable under the law.48
49 Research and Best Practices
Practices The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA; P.L. 92-225; 52 U.S.C. §§30101-30146) 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 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.Accountability Office) with maintaining a clearinghouse of election administration research.49
50 The 1974 amendment to the act (P.L. 93-443) created the FEC, which inherited the clearinghouse The 1974 amendment to the act (P.L. 93-443) created the FEC, which inherited the clearinghouse
function and assigned it to its OEA.function and assigned it to its OEA.50
51 HAVA transferred the OEAHAVA transferred the OEA’'s clearinghouse responsibilities—along with its staff and funding—to s clearinghouse responsibilities—along with its staff and funding—to
the EAC.the EAC.5152 The EAC has broad authority under the act to conduct elections research and share 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 election administration best practices, and it has used that authority both to collect data of
ongoing interest and to address particular developments.ongoing interest and to address particular developments.52 The53 For example, the agency includes a section on state agency includes a section on state
elections policies in its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS),elections policies in its biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS),53 for
example, and54 and it has produced resources to help election officials respond to foreign efforts to has produced resources to help election officials respond to foreign efforts to
interfere in interfere in the 2016 elections, elections effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a reported elections, elections effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a reported
increase in threats to election workers during and increase in threats to election workers during and sinceafter 2020.⁵⁵ Congress has also assigned the EAC some specific research projects. HAVA 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 charged the agency with
conducting studies ofconducting studies of
 military and overseas voting, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense military and overseas voting, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD);(DOD);
 human factor research, in consultation with NIST;human factor research, in consultation with NIST;
 mail voter registration and, in consultation with the Social Security Administrationmail voter registration and, in consultation with the Social Security Administration
(SSA), use of Social Security numbers for voter registration or election eligibility or , use of Social Security numbers for voter registration or election eligibility or
identification purposes;identification purposes;
 electronic voting and the electoral process; andelectronic voting and the electoral process; and
 free postage for absentee ballots, in consultation with the U.S. Postal Servicefree postage for absentee ballots, in consultation with the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS).55
.⁵⁶The EAVS also includes congressionally mandated reporting on voter registration and military 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.and overseas voting, in addition to the EAC-initiated section on state elections policies.56
57 Help America Vote College Program
As noted in the As noted in the "“Grant Programs”" section of this report, Congress identified challenges with section of this report, Congress identified challenges with
youth voter participation and poll worker recruitment in the 2000 elections. It respondedyouth voter participation and poll worker recruitment in the 2000 elections. It responded, in part in part,
by directing the EAC to establish a program to encourage students at institutions of higher 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.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 HAVA authorizes the EAC to conduct various activities as part of that program, including
developing materials, sponsoring seminars and workshops, producing advertisements directed at developing materials, sponsoring seminars and workshops, producing advertisements directed at
students, and awarding grants. To date, the agency has primarily used funding appropriated for students, and awarding grants. To date, the agency has primarily used funding appropriated for
the program for grant-making.the program for grant-making.57
58 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 Federal agency support for the general administration of elections at the time of the 2000 elections was primarily
provided by the FECprovided by the FEC’'s OEA. s OEA. Fol owingFollowing the enactment of HAVA and transfer of the OEA the enactment of HAVA and transfer of the OEA’'s duties, staff, and funding 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 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 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 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.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 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. represented on its advisory bodies, and some provide additional assistance with its work. The agency’For example, the agency's Board of s Board of
Advisors includes representatives of DOD, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance (Access) 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)Board, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), for example,; and and
NIST assists the EAC with some of its research, grant-making, and voting system testing and certification NIST assists the EAC with some of its research, grant-making, and voting system testing and certification
responsibilities.responsibilities.
The EAC also provides election administration expertise to other federal agencies directly and through The EAC also provides election administration expertise to other federal agencies directly and through
congressional testimony and congressional testimony and col aboratescollaborates with them on responses to election administration developments. with them on responses to election administration developments.
Fol owingFor example, following the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’'s (DHSs (DHS’'s) designation of election systems as critical infrastructure in January 2017, the EAC helped set up and has participated in the department's Election Infrastructure Subsector.⁵⁹ 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, 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., by R. Sam Garrett.
Structure
The EAC consists of an appointed commission, a professional staff led by an executive director 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 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 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 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 of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittees of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.59
Senate Committees on Appropriations.⁶⁰ The structure of the EAC, like its duties, reflects its emphasis on assistance.The structure of the EAC, like its duties, reflects its emphasis on assistance.6061 The agency The agency’s
's advisory bodies are central to its functioning, with opportunities for input into its guidance, 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, 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.local officials, or their representatives make up some or all of the membership of all four.
The EAC was also set up to The EAC was also set up to ensureprovide for a range of expert input into agency activities and a range of expert input into agency activities and to help guard help guard
against partisanship.against partisanship.6162 In addition to voters and state and local officials, In addition to voters and state and local officials, for example, thethe agency's advisory advisory
bodies include experts in bodies include experts in a range ofvarious other fields relevant to election administration, from other fields relevant to election administration, from
disability access to science and technology. The membership and selection processes for the 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 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 approval by a three-vote quorum of the four commissioners, are also designed for partisan
balance.balance.
Commission
The EACThe EAC’'s commission is designed to have four members, each of whom is required to have 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 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

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 leadership of the House or Senate and appointed by the President subject to the advice and
consent of the Senate.consent of the Senate.62
63 HAVA provides for HAVA provides for the commissioners to be appointed to four-year terms on staggered two-year commissioners to be appointed to four-year terms on staggered two-year
cycles.cycles.6364 They may be reappointed to up to one additional term and continue to serve on They may be reappointed to up to one additional term and continue to serve on
“holdover”"holdover" status after their terms expire, pending appointment of a successor. Two status after their terms expire, pending appointment of a successor. Two
commissioners representing different parties are to be chosen by the commissioncommissioners representing different parties are to be chosen by the commission’'s membership s membership
each year to serve one-year terms as chair and vice chair.each year to serve one-year terms as chair and vice chair.64
65 Action on activities the commission is authorized by HAVA to conduct requires approval by a Action on activities the commission is authorized by HAVA to conduct requires approval by a
three-vote quorum of the commissioners.three-vote quorum of the commissioners.6566 That quorum requirement applies to most of the That quorum requirement applies to most of the
agency’agency's major activities, from updating the VVSG to promulgating regulations for the NVRA-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 mandated voter registration reports and federal mail voter registration form to appointing the agency's executive director and general counsel.⁶⁷ Professional Staff

The EAC's executive director and general counsel 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.⁶⁸

Figure 1. EAC Organizational Chart

(As of FY2026)

Source: CRS, based on EAC, Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 7, https://www.eac.gov/sites/https://www.eac.gov/sites/
default/default/files/2025-05/FISCAL_YEAR_2026_EAC_CONGRESSIONAL_BUDGET_JUSTIFICATION.pdf. 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 (seeHAVA authorizes the executive director of the EAC to hire other professional staff (see Figure 1
for an organizational chart of the agency as of for an organizational chart of the agency as of FY2023).68FY2026).⁶⁹ As a matter of agency policy, the As a matter of agency policy, the
executive director is also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the EAC, including executive director is also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the EAC, including
preparing policy recommendations for consideration by the commissioners, implementing preparing policy recommendations for consideration by the commissioners, implementing
adopted policies, and handling administrative affairs.adopted policies, and handling administrative affairs.69
70 The size of the EACThe size of the EAC’'s staff has varied, from the four commissioners and handful of transfers 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 from OEA in FY2004 to 50 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in FY2010, about 2520 to 30 to 30
FTEs between FY2013 and FTEs between FY2013 and FY2020FY2019, and , and 4683 FTEs in FTEs in FY2021.70FY2024.⁷¹ The number of FTEs at the agency was capped at 22 in FY2005 and 23 in FY2006.⁷² 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 The cap was lifted for FY2007 and, as
of this writing, has not been reinstated.of this writing, has not been reinstated.72
73 Advisory Bodies
HAVA provided for three advisory bodies for the EAC: the Board of Advisors, the Standards 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 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).its own authority to add a fourth advisory body, the Local Leadership Council (LLC).73
74 Board of Advisors
The EACThe EAC’'s Board of Advisors is charged with reviewing draft VVSG and voluntary guidance s Board of Advisors is charged with reviewing draft VVSG and voluntary guidance
before they are presented to the agencybefore they are presented to the agency’'s commissioners for a vote on adoption.s commissioners for a vote on adoption.7475 HAVA directs HAVA directs
the board to appoint a search committee in the event of a vacancy for executive director of the 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.EAC and the commissioners to consider the candidates the search committee recommends.7576 The The
commissioners are also supposed to consult with the board on research, program goals, and long-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.term planning, and NIST is supposed to consult with it on monitoring and review of VSTLs.76
77 The Board of Advisors was designed by HAVA to have 37 members, but its membership dropped 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

to 35 with the 2016 merger of two of the organizations responsible for appointing its members.⁷⁸ Sixteen members of the board are appointed by organizations that represent state and local Sixteen members of the board are appointed by organizations that represent state and local
officials,officials,7879 and seven represent federal entities. and seven represent federal entities.7980 Four members are science and technology Four members are science and technology
experts, who are each appointed by the majority or minority leadership of the House or Senate. 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 The remaining eight members of the board represent voters, with two appointed by each of the
chairs and ranking members of the EACchairs and ranking members of the EAC’'s two primary oversight committees. The overall s two primary oversight committees. The overall
membership of the board is supposed to be bipartisan and geographically representative.membership of the board is supposed to be bipartisan and geographically representative.80
81 Standards Board
HAVA assigned the Standards Board and its nine-member Executive Board the same duties as the 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 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 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, 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 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 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.them to the full board, as well as carrying out any other duties the full board delegates to it.81
82 The full Standards Board has 110 members. They include two representatives from each of the 50 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 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 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 affiliated with the same political party. State election officials are chosen for membership on the
board by their stateboard by their state’'s chief election official, and local officials are selected according to a process s chief election official, and local officials are selected according to a process
overseen by the chief state election official.overseen by the chief state election official.82
83 The nine members of the Executive Board are appointed to two-year terms by the full 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 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, consecutive terms, and no more than five Executive Board members may be either state officials,
local officials, or members of the same political party.local officials, or members of the same political party.83
84 Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
The 15-member TGDC is charged with helping the executive director of the EAC develop the The 15-member TGDC is charged with helping the executive director of the EAC develop the
VVSG.VVSG.8485 That has That has tended to involvetraditionally involved working with NIST to draft guidelines for consideration by working with NIST to draft guidelines for consideration by
the other two statutory advisory bodies, the public, and the commission.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 EACThe director of NIST serves as chair of the TGDC and, in collaboration with the EAC’s
's commissioners, appoints its other 14 members. Appointees to the TGDC must include an equal 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 number of members of the Board of Advisors, Standards Board, and Access Board; one
representative of each of the American National Standards Institute representative of each of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of and the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics EngineersElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); two representatives of NASED who do not serve on ; 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 the Board of Advisors or Standards Board and do not share a political party; and other experts in
voting system-related science and technology.voting system-related science and technology.85
86 Local Leadership Council (LLC)
The LLC was established by the EAC in 2021 to provide input into the agencyThe LLC was established by the EAC in 2021 to provide input into the agency’'s work, such as by s work, such as by
offering recommendations and sharing experiences and best practices.offering recommendations and sharing experiences and best practices.8687 A primary motivation for A primary motivation for
creating the council, according to agency leadership, was to help the EAC build direct creating the council, according to agency leadership, was to help the EAC build direct
relationships with local election officials.relationships with local election officials.87
88 The council consists of two local election officials from each of the 50 states. Where applicable, 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 the members are supposed to be current or former leaders of professional associations for local
election officials in their states.election officials in their states.88
89 Office of Inspector General (OIG)
The EAC is required to have an OIG under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by 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.).HAVA (IG Act; P.L. 95-452; 5 U.S.C. app.).8990 As noted in the As noted in the "“Grant Programs”" section of this section of this
report, the EACreport, the EAC’'s OIG audits its grantees and refers issues identified in audits to agency s OIG audits its grantees and refers issues identified in audits to agency
management for resolution.management for resolution.9091 In one instance, for example, the OIG determined that a grantee 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 could not document certain grant expenses, and the grantee was required to return some of its
grant funds.grant funds.91
92 The EACThe EAC’'s OIG also conducts internal audits and investigations of the agency itself. That s OIG also conducts internal audits and investigations of the agency itself. That
includes regular reporting on the EACincludes regular reporting on the EAC’'s management challenges and compliance with federal s management challenges and compliance with federal
laws, such as the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA; P.L. 113-283laws, 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 EAC44 U.S.C. §§3551-3559). It also includes audits of the EAC’'s finances and s finances and investigationinvestigations of of
complaints about fraud, waste, mismanagement, or abuse at the agency, such as a 2008 complaints about fraud, waste, mismanagement, or abuse at the agency, such as a 2008
investigation of alleged political bias in investigation of alleged political bias in the preparation of an EAC report about voter fraud and preparation of an EAC report about voter fraud and
intimidation, a 2010 investigation of complaints about the agencyintimidation, a 2010 investigation of complaints about the agency’'s work environment, and a 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
2015 investigation of reports of disbursement of expired grant funds.⁹³ History Implementation of the EAC has sometimes deviated in practice from the plan for the agency set 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 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.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 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. differed among Members and in response to new developments. SomeFor example, some have seen the EAC as a have seen the EAC as a
temporary fix for a short-term problem, temporary fix for a short-term problem, for example, while others have viewed it as a permanent while others have viewed it as a permanent
fixture in federal elections work. Recent developments in the election administration landscape, 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 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.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 As a result, the role of the EAC and congressional perspectives on its role have varied over the
course of the agencycourse of the agency’'s history, from its initial setup in the wake of the 2000 elections to its s history, from its initial setup in the wake of the 2000 elections to its
participation in the federal response to more recent developments.participation in the federal response to more recent developments.
Initial Setup
HAVA called for members to be appointed to the EACHAVA called for members to be appointed to the EAC’'s commission by February 2003, but the s commission by February 2003, but the
first four commissioners did not take office until Decemberfirst four commissioners did not take office until December.93 of that year.⁹⁴ The act also authorized up to $10 The act also authorized up to $10
million in operational funding for the agency for each of FY2003 through FY2005, but, with no 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 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 (seeless than the authorized ceiling for the first two of those fiscal years (see Table 2 for details).for details).94
95 The delay in appointing commissioners and limited early funding for the agency contributed to 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. the EAC missing statutory deadlines for conducting research and issuing voluntary guidance.
Work on the agencyWork on the agency’'s voting system testing and certification program also started later than s voting system testing and certification program also started later than
anticipated.anticipated.
Those developments had practical implications. As set out in HAVA, the deadlines for the EAC to Those developments had practical implications. As set out in HAVA, the deadlines for the EAC to
release voluntary guidance for implementing the actrelease voluntary guidance for implementing the act’'s Title III requirements preceded the s Title III requirements preceded the
deadlines for states to start meeting the requirements.deadlines for states to start meeting the requirements.9596 In theory, that would have enabled states In theory, that would have enabled states
to use the guidance to inform their implementation of the requirements.to use the guidance to inform their implementation of the requirements.9697 In practice In practice, however, the , the
commissioners took office nearly a month-and-a-half after the first set of guidance was due and 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%20Com
mission.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’less than three weeks before states were supposed to start meeting requirements.⁹⁸ The EAC's voting system testing and certification program is also intended to help inform state 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 HAVAand local choices of voting systems. However, states that were planning to use HAVA’'s lever and s lever and
punch card voting system replacement grant funding to upgrade their systems after the 2000 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 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.general election in November 2004 or return some of the funds.9899 They could apply for an They could apply for an
extension of that deadline to the first election after January 1, 2006—which was ultimately 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 further extended to the first election after November 1, 2010—but VVSG 1.0 was not adopted
until December 2005 and the first until December 2005 and the first voting system was not certified to the guidelines until February system was not certified to the guidelines until February
2009.2009.99
100 Efforts to Terminate
As of the beginning of the As of the beginning of the 112th112^th Congress, the EAC had distributed most of the grant funding it 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 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 conduct. The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) had recently renewed a had recently renewed a
resolution—first adopted in 2005 and subsequently approved again in 2015—that called for resolution—first adopted in 2005 and subsequently approved again in 2015—that called for
disbanding the agency.disbanding the agency.100101 The authorization of operational funding for the EAC had expired, and The authorization of operational funding for the EAC had expired, and
the agencythe agency’'s OIG reported ongoing issues with its performance management, information s OIG reported ongoing issues with its performance management, information
security, work environment, records management, and overhead expenses.security, work environment, records management, and overhead expenses.101
102 Those developments were taken by some as evidence that the agency had outlived its Those developments were taken by some as evidence that the agency had outlived its
usefulness.usefulness.102103 Members introduced legislation to terminate the EAC in each of the Members introduced legislation to terminate the EAC in each of the 112th through
115th112^th through 115^th Congresses, and the House Congresses, and the House Appropriations Committee Committee on Appropriations recommended cutting or eliminating recommended cutting or eliminating
its funding each fiscal year between FY2012 and FY2018.its funding each fiscal year between FY2012 and FY2018.103104 For details of those funding For details of those funding
recommendations, recommendations, seesee Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2003 to FY2014 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,
Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, as indicated ($ millions)as indicated ($ millions)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Request

—

10.0

10.0

14.8

12.0

12.2

12.7

13.3

13.6

10.5

8.8

8.3

House^b

—

5.0

12.5

13.1

12.0

12.2

12.9

13.4

12.7

5.2

4.4

0.0

Senate^b

—

^c

7.0

9.9

12.1

12.2

12.7

13.3

13.6

11.5

8.8

8.3

Enacted

2.0

1.2^a

10.8

11.4

11.3

12.3

12.9

13.4

13.1

8.8

8.8

8.1

Sources: CRS, based on data from the President's budget requests and relevant appropriations measures.

Notes: Figures are from appropriations for the EAC'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 s Salaries and Expenses account, including funds designated
for the agencyfor the agency’'s Office of Inspector General. They are rounded and do not reflect rescissions, sequestration 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 reductions, or funds designated for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, mock election grants, or
the Help America Vote the Help America Vote Col egeCollege Program. As such, the amounts in this table may not match total figures provided Program. As such, the amounts in this table may not match total figures provided
in appropriations measures or other budget documents.in appropriations measures or other budget documents.
a. a. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) provided $800,000 in funding for the Federal The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) provided $800,000 in funding for the Federal
Election CommissionElection Commission’'s Office of Election Administration (OEA). The act indicated that any of that funding 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 OEA had left when its staff and functions were transferred to the EAC should also be transferred to the
EAC.EAC.
b. b. Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed for a chamber-passed bil and
bill and regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-
reported measures.reported measures.
c. c. The Senate-passed The Senate-passed bil bill did not include a separate account for EAC Salaries and Expenses. It would have did not include a separate account for EAC Salaries and Expenses. It would have
provided $1.5 provided $1.5 bil ionbillion for EAC-administered grants under a general EAC account but did not designate a for EAC-administered grants under a general EAC account but did not designate a
specific portion of the funds for EAC operations.specific portion of the funds for EAC operations.
Table 3. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations, FY2014 to FY2023
FY2015 to FY2025 Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels,
as indicated ($ millions)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’

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Request

8.1

8.1

8.3

7.7

7.7

8.1

11.6

21.3

28.6

31.3

36.5

House^a

0.0

4.8

4.9

5.5

8.6^b

12.5

17.6

21.3

28.6

18.5

18.5

Senate^a

8.1

8.1

8.1

7.7

7.7

8.1

11.3

18.5

20.5

26.8

28.8

Enacted

8.1

8.1

8.2

8.6

8.0

11.3

15.5

18.5

25.5

26.5

26.5

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 s Salaries and Expenses account, including funds designated
for the agencyfor the agency’'s Office of Inspector General. They are rounded and do not reflect rescissions, sequestration 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 reductions, or funds designated for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, mock election grants, the
Help America Vote Help America Vote Col egeCollege Program, or agency relocation expenses. As such, the amounts in this table may not 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.match total figures provided in appropriations measures or other budget documents.
a. a. Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: Figures for the House and Senate indicate chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed for a chamber-passed bil and
bill and regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-regular text for a measure that did not pass the chamber. The figures in regular text are from committee-
reported measures with the reported measures with the fol owingfollowing exceptions: the Senate figure for FY2015 is from the subcommittee exceptions: the Senate figure for FY2015 is from the subcommittee
bil bill, and the Senate figures for FY2018, FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023 are from the committee chairman, and the Senate figures for FY2018, FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023 are from the committee chairman’s
's draft.draft.
b. b. This figure reflects the level in House-passed This figure reflects the level in House-passed bil bill H.R. 6147. The House subsequently passed other H.R. 6147. The House subsequently passed other bil sbills that that
would have provided other levels of funding for the EAC.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—The Senate also stopped confirming—and some congressional leaders stopped recommending—
nominees to the agencynominees to the agency’'s commission.s commission.104105 The commission lost the numbers required for a quorum The commission lost the numbers required for a quorum
in December 2010 and both of its remaining members in December 2011 (in December 2010 and both of its remaining members in December 2011 (seesee Figure 2 for for
details).details).105106 The Senate, some of whose Members cited opposition to the existence of the agency The Senate, some of whose Members cited opposition to the existence of the agency
in general rather than to individual nominees, did not confirm any new commissioners until December rather than to individual nominees, did not confirm any new commissioners until December
2014.2014.106
107 Without a quorum, the commission could not take official action. One notable consequence was Without a quorum, the commission could not take official action. One notable consequence was
that it could not update the VVSG.that it could not update the VVSG.107108 The creation of the EAC was partly a response to the FEC The creation of the EAC was partly a response to the FEC’s
's failure to keep its voting system guidelines up to date.failure to keep its voting system guidelines up to date.108109 However, the lack of a quorum between However, the lack of a quorum between
December 2010 and the swearingDecember 2010 and the swearing -in of the newly confirmed commissioners in January 2015 in of the newly confirmed commissioners in January 2015 left a
contributed to a nearly decade-long gap between the EACnearly decade-long gap between the EAC’'s adoption of VVSG 1.0 in 2005 and its first update in 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

2015.¹¹⁰ Response to Recent Developments

Recent election cycles have seen a number of high-profile developments, including foreign efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 election cycle, and an increase in reports of threats to election workers during and after 2020.¹¹¹

Figure 2. Tenures of EAC Commissioners Sources: CRS, based on data from the EAC and Congress.gov.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 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 prominently, it has administered elections grants. Congress responded to foreign efforts to
interfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemicinterfere in the 2016 elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in part in part, with funding with funding
under HAVAunder HAVA’'s general improvements grant program, and it charged the EAC with administering s general improvements grant program, and it charged the EAC with administering
the funds.the funds.111
112 The agency has also provided nonfinancial resources. As noted in the The agency has also provided nonfinancial resources. As noted in the “Structure” "Structure" section of this section of this
report, it helped set up and has report, it helped set up and has continued to participate in the EIS.112participated in DHS's Election Infrastructure Subsector.¹¹³ Both in that role and Both in that role and
independently, it has offered assistance with securing election systems. independently, it has offered assistance with securing election systems. It has producedFor example, it has provided election officials with resources resources
to help election officials to help address the cybersecurity threats highlighted by foreign efforts to address the cybersecurity threats highlighted by foreign efforts to
interfere in elections, interfere in elections, for example, as well as the physical threats posed by the physical threats posed by the COVID-19COVID-19
pandemic, and both physical and cybersecurity threats to election workers.¹¹⁴ 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 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.recent developments as new grounds to extend or expand it.114115 More generally, the focus of More generally, the focus of
debate about the EAC seems to have shifted debate about the EAC seems to have shifted in the 116th and 117th Congressessince the 115^th Congress from whether there from whether there
is a role for the agency to what is a role for the agency to what thatits role should be. role should be. ProposedFor example, proposed and enacted operational funding for and enacted operational funding for
the EAC has the EAC has increasedbeen higher in recent years in recent years overthan the levels provided the levels provided in earlier Congresses, for example,
prior to FY2022, and proposals to terminate the agency were not reintroduced in the and proposals to terminate the agency were not reintroduced in the 116th or 117th116^th through 118^th Congresses. Congresses.
Legislative Activity
One question Congress considered when developing the EAC was whether it should exist as a 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 separate agency at all. That question was also a subject of particular congressional interest in the
112th through 115th112^th through 115^th Congresses, which saw efforts by some Members to disband the agency. Congresses, which saw efforts by some Members to disband the agency.
As noted in the As noted in the "“Response to Recent Developments”" section of this report, debate about whether section of this report, debate about whether
there is a role for the EAC seems to have receded in prominence in there is a role for the EAC seems to have receded in prominence in the 116th and 117th
subsequent Congresses. There have continued to be questions about exactly what the agencyCongresses. There have continued to be questions about exactly what the agency’'s role should be, s role should be,
however, including what types of tasks it should perform and how it should however, including what types of tasks it should perform and how it should operate.
function. Members have introduced legislation on each of the above questions since HAVAMembers have introduced legislation on each of the above questions since HAVA’'s enactment in s enactment in
2002, offering proposals related to (1) whether to maintain an election administration agency and, 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.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 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 for three fiscal years. Some Members took that as an indication that the EAC was intended to be
temporary. As described in the temporary. As described in the "“Efforts to Terminate”" section of this report, they introduced section of this report, they introduced
appropriations measures that would have reduced or eliminated the agencyappropriations measures that would have reduced or eliminated the agency’'s funding and s funding and
authorizing legislation that would have terminated it and redistributed any of its remaining duties authorizing legislation that would have terminated it and redistributed any of its remaining duties
to other agencies.to other agencies.
Other Members have highlighted benefits of ongoing EAC responsibilities like updating the 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 VVSG and conducting the EAVS and argued that its duties could not be performed as
effectively—or much more cost-effectively—by other agencies.effectively—or much more cost-effectively—by other agencies.115116 They have provided for They have provided for
ongoing appropriations for the agency and proposed removing potential ambiguity about its status ongoing appropriations for the agency and proposed removing potential ambiguity about its status
by reauthorizing its operational funding.by reauthorizing its operational funding.
Table 4 offers some examples of legislative proposals to terminate or defund the EAC, as well as 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, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 2011, H.Rept. 112-100 (Washington: GPO,
2011), pp. 54-56; and U.S. Congress, 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, 112th Cong., 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
examples of proposals to extend it. Table 4. Selected Legislation Related to Whether to Maintain an Election Administration Agency

Short Title

Number

Congress

Summary of Selected Provisions

American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act

H.R. 4563

118^th

Would have reauthorized operational funding for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

Election Assistance Commission Termination Act

H.R. 634

115^th

Would have terminated the EAC

Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act

H.R. 672

112^th

Would have terminated the EAC

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015

H.R. 5016

113^th

Would have defunded the EAC

Voter Empowerment Act of 2024

H.R. 9727/S. 5151

118^th

Would have reauthorized operational funding for Would have reauthorized operational funding for
the EACthe EAC
Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov.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 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 been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil sbills in this category or even, in some cases, all such in this category or even, in some cases, all such
proposals in the proposals in the bil bill in which they appear.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 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 result, it has been a common choice of agency for proposals to take new federal action on
elections issues.elections issues.
That is especially true of proposals to extend the EACThat is especially true of proposals to extend the EAC’'s existing duties into new issue areas. s existing duties into new issue areas.
HAVA charged the EAC with administering grant programs; issuing voluntary guidance for HAVA charged the EAC with administering grant programs; issuing voluntary guidance for
implementingimplementation of federal requirements; conducting research and sharing best practices; federal requirements; conducting research and sharing best practices; and providing providing
for voluntary voting system guidelines, testing, and certificationfor voluntary voting system guidelines, testing, and certification; and maintaining the federal mail voter registration form. Elections legislation involving . Elections legislation involving
those types of tasks, such as bills that would authorize development of voluntary guidelines for those types of tasks, such as bills that would authorize development of voluntary guidelines for e-
poll booksnonvoting election systems or grant programs for conducting risk-limiting audits, often assigns them to the EAC. 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 There have also, though, been proposals to assign the agency new types of tasks, including tasks
that would that would expandextend it beyond its traditional assistance focus. it beyond its traditional assistance focus. For example, Members have introduced legislation Members have introduced legislation
that would direct the agency to set mandatory standards for certain aspects of election that would direct the agency to set mandatory standards for certain aspects of election
administration, for example,administration or lift the limit on EAC rulemaking in general. or lift the limit on EAC rulemaking in general.116
117 Table 5 offers some examples offers some examples from the 117th Congress of legislative proposals to assign the EAC 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.
new responsibilities. Table 5. Selected Legislation Related to What the Agency Should Do

Short Title

Number

Congress

Summary of Selected Provisions

Climate Resilient Elections Act

H.R. 5407

119^th

Would require states to submit plans for continuity of election operations in the event of a disaster to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and direct the EAC to publish the plans

IDs for an Inclusive Democracy Act

H.R. 1457

119^th

Would direct the Social Security Administration to make identification cards available to eligible applicants at no cost, and include a representative of the EAC on a task force that would be charged with developing requirements for producing and disseminating the cards and best practices for helping members of vulnerable populations obtain them

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026

P.L. 119-60

119^th

Directs the EAC to provide for the conduct of penetration testing as part of its voting system testing and certification program^a

Preparing Election Administrators for AI Act

S. 2346

119^th

Would direct the EAC, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to develop voluntary guidelines that address the use and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in election administration and to issue a report on the use of AI in the 2024 federal elections

Restoring Faith in Elections Act

H.R. 160

119^th

Would require states to establish and operate automatic voter registration systems, and direct the EAC to make grants to states to help them implement the new requirement

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 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 been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil sbills in this category or even, in some cases, all such in this category or even, in some cases, all such
proposals in the proposals in the bil bill in which they appear.in which they appear.
How the Agency Should Function
a. The EAC's current practice, as outlined in its voting system testing and certification program manual, calls for voting system vendors to submit a penetration testing report as part of the Test Readiness Review the agency uses "to ensure that test and evaluation resources are not committed to a voting system that is not ready for testing by a [voting system test laboratory]." EAC, Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual Version 3.0, November 15, 2022, pp. 24-27, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Testing%20and%20Certification%20Program%20Manual%20Version%203.0%20(2).pdf. How the Agency Should Function How agencies are set up can help determine how effective they are at achieving their intended 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 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.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 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 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, for example, as well as to prohibit use of operational funding for agency-created
advisory bodies other than the LLC.advisory bodies other than the LLC.
Other bills would make Other bills would make procedural changeschanges to EAC procedures. Members have proposed exempting the EAC from . 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 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 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 concurrent submission of its budget requests to Congress to give Members more insight into its
resource needs.resource needs.117
118 Table 6 offers some examples offers some examples from the 117th Congress of legislative proposals to change the of legislative proposals to change the
EAC’EAC's structure or procedures. Table 6. Selected Legislation Related to How the Agency Should Function Short Title

Number

Congress

Summary of Selected Provisions

Accessible Voting Act of 2024

H.R. 7389/S. 3748

118^th

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 Would have established an Office of Accessibility within
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)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 2021For the People Act of 2021
H.R. 1H.R. 1

117^th

Would have directed the EAC to have a Senior Cyber Would have directed the EAC to have a Senior Cyber
Policy AdvisorPolicy Advisor
For the People Act of 2021For the People Act of 2021
H.R. 1H.R. 1//S. 1S. 1 /S. 2093

117^th

/S.
Would have added the Secretary of the U.S. Would have added the Secretary of the U.S.
2093
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the
Secretary’Secretary's designee to the EACs designee to the EAC’'s Board of Advisors s Board of Advisors
and a DHS representative to its Technical Guidelines and a DHS representative to its Technical Guidelines
Development CommitteeDevelopment Committee
Voter Empowerment Act of 2021
H.R. 2358/S. 954
Would have repealed the EAC’

Positioning the Election Assistance Commission for the Future Act of 2023

H.R. 4479

118^th

Would have instituted a cap on the number of staff at the EAC, prohibited the agency from using operational funding for agency-created advisory bodies other than the Local Leadership Council, and adjusted commissioner compensation

Voter Empowerment Act of 2024

H.R. 9727/S. 5151

118^th

Would have repealed the EAC's exemption from s exemption from
certain government contracting requirementscertain government contracting requirements
Source: CRS, based on data from Congress.gov.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 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 been offered. They do not include all proposals in all bil sbills in this category or even, in some cases, all such in this category or even, in some cases, all such
proposals in the proposals in the bil bill in which they appear.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 Congress has the authority to conduct oversight of the EAC and to legislate on both the agency
and election administration more broadly.and election administration more broadly.118119 The history of the EAC and related legislative The history of the EAC and related legislative
activity suggest some considerations that may be of interest to Members who are weighing activity suggest some considerations that may be of interest to Members who are weighing
whether or how to take action on those authorities.whether or how to take action on those authorities.
 Adding Adding agency expertise. As noted in the As noted in the “Overview”"Overview" section of this report, the section of this report, the
EAC was designedEAC was designed, in part in part, to provide for a range of expert input into agency to provide for a range of expert input into agency
activities. However, new developments might call for experience or expertise not activities. However, new developments might call for experience or expertise not
contemplated by HAVA. Previously introduced legislation suggests various possible contemplated by HAVA. Previously introduced legislation suggests various possible
ways to provide for new expertise at the agency if Congress chooses to do so, ways to provide for new expertise at the agency if Congress chooses to do so,
including adding members to the agencyincluding adding members to the agency’'s advisory bodies, creating new advisory s advisory bodies, creating new advisory
bodies or agency offices, and directing the agency to hire certain staff or consult with 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. For one possible concern about such
access, see Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election
Assistance Commission, August 2, 2007, p. 87; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration,
Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 110th Cong., 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

 certain stakeholders.¹²⁰ Assigning duties. One way to provide for elections-related expertise at the federal 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 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 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 HAVA to the EAC, but it reserved certain tasks to other agencies or to the EAC in
conjunction with other agencies. conjunction with other agencies. ItFor example, it charged the U.S. Department of Health and charged the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Human Services (HHS) with administering HAVAwith administering HAVA’'s disability access grant programss disability access grant programs,
for example, and NIST with providing the EAC various types of technical assistance. and NIST with providing the EAC various types of technical assistance.
Members contemplating new elections duties that would involve experience or Members contemplating new elections duties that would involve experience or
expertise available at agencies other than the EAC might consider whether to take a 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.similar approach or to assert a sole or primary role for the EAC.
 Assessing resource needs. The EAC has been described variously as both The EAC has been described variously as both
overfunded and underfunded.overfunded and underfunded.120121 Developments like the election security threats in Developments like the election security threats in
recent election cycles have also prompted calls for additional resources for agency recent election cycles have also prompted calls for additional resources for agency
operations and for distribution to states and localities through the EAC.operations and for distribution to states and localities through the EAC.121122 Congress Congress
might choose to consider how the types and levels of funding available for the EAC, might choose to consider how the types and levels of funding available for the EAC,
EAC grantees, and agencies like NIST that support the EACagencies like NIST that support the EAC, and EAC grantees align with current align with current
resource needs.resource needs.122123 Members who are considering assigning new tasks to the EAC Members who are considering assigning new tasks to the EAC
might also consider whethermight also consider whether or not to authorize or appropriate additional funding for 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 the new tasks and, if so, whether to provide it as a dedicated funding stream or part of
an overall increase in the agencyan overall increase in the agency’'s operational funding. Various tools might be s operational funding. Various tools might be
available to help assess resource needs, including studies of appropriate funding available to help assess resource needs, including studies of appropriate funding
levels, concurrent budget submission, and reporting on available resources.levels, concurrent budget submission, and reporting on available resources.123
 124 Scheduling activity. As noted in the As noted in the "“Initial Setup” " section of this report, EAC section of this report, EAC
guidance is intended to inform state and local action. As also noted in that section, 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 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 commission and the time required to complete tasks like developing voting system
guidelines and manufacturing, testing, and certifying systems to the guidelines have guidelines and manufacturing, testing, and certifying systems to the guidelines have
delayed the availability—and reduced the practical utility—of some of the EACdelayed the availability—and reduced the practical utility—of some of the EAC’s
's guidance. Members who are contemplating assigning the EAC new guidance guidance. Members who are contemplating assigning the EAC new guidance
responsibilities might consider whether to try to account for the potential for such 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 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 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 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.or years after the EAC has issued guidance rather than a specific date.
 Considering the quorum requirement. One possible approach to addressing delays One possible approach to addressing delays
in EAC activity caused by lack of a quorum of commissioners is to adjust deadlines. 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 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 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 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, “for certain activities, by exempting them from the quorum requirement, and (2) trying to reduce the likelihood of loss of a quorum.¹²⁵ 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.

Footnotes

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 Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Elections Podcast: 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, 115^th Cong., 1^st sess., February 7, 2017 (GPO, 2017), pp. 2-3; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Nominations, 115^th Cong., 2^nd sess., November 28, 2018, S.Hrg. 115-583 (GPO, 2019), pp. 1, 4.

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, 116^th Cong., 2^nd sess., July 28, 2020, p. 2.

6. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/FISCAL_YEAR_2026_EAC_CONGRESSIONAL_BUDGET_JUSTIFICATION.pdf. 7.

EAC, Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3.

8.

P.L. 118-47.

9.

Andrew Glass, "Congress Certifies Bush as Winner of 2000 Election, Jan. 6, 2001," Politico, January 6, 2016, 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 Electoral Process, August 2001, pp. 12-14, 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, https://vote.caltech.edu/documents/153/voting_what_is_what_could_be.pdf.

11.

See, for example, H.R. 775 and S. 953 in the 107^th 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, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 27, 2001, S.Hrg. 107-1036 (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, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., November 15, 2001 (GPO, 2003), p. 2.

16.

52 U.S.C. §20508; and 52 U.S.C. §20929. For more on the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, see CRS Report R45030, Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and Subsequent Developments, by Sarah J. Eckman.

17. 52 U.S.C. §21142. EAC, Audits & Resolutions, 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 (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. General Accounting Office (GAO), Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation, GAO-02-3, October 2001, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-3.pdf. The U.S. General Accounting Office was renamed the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2004. GAO, 100 Years of GAO, https://web.archive.org/web/20250205070342/https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/hundred-years-of-gao.

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.

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, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., December 10, 2001, H.Rept. 107-329 (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, 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, 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.

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 identify any additional information about its activities. The White House, "Personnel Announcement," press release, July 9, 2004, 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, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., p. 893.

32.

For more on elections grant funding in general, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Elections Podcast: Federal Role in Elections Funding, by Karen L. Shanton.

33.

See, for example, EAC, 2023 Grant Expenditure Report, June 28, 2024, p. 3, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/EAC_Report_on_State_Expenditures_of_HAVA_Funds_2023.pdf.

34.

52 U.S.C. §21142.

35.

Federal Election Commission (FEC), Performance and Test Standards for Punchcard, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990, pp. xvii-xviii, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/FEC_1990_Voting_System_Standards1.pdf.

36. EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, 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, 107^th Cong., 1^st sess., October 31, 2001, H.Rept. 107-263 (GPO, 2001), p. 5. 37.

52 U.S.C. §20961.

38.

52 U.S.C. §20962.

39. Section 6805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (P.L. 119-60) requires the EAC to provide for the conduct of penetration testing as part of its voting system testing and certification program. The EAC's current practice, as outlined in its voting system testing and certification program manual, calls for voting system vendors to submit a penetration testing report as part of the Test Readiness Review the agency uses "to ensure that test and evaluation resources are not committed to a voting system that is not ready for testing by a [voting system test laboratory]." EAC, Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual Version 3.0, November 15, 2022, pp. 24-27, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Testing_and_Certification_Program_Manual_Version_3_020421.pdf. 40.

52 U.S.C. §20961; and 52 U.S.C. §20971. According to the EAC's voting system testing and certification program 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.

41.

EAC, "EAC Adopts 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines," press release, December 3, 2005, 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, 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, https://www.eac.gov/news/2021/02/10/us-election-assistance-commission-adopts-new-voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-20.

42. 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), NASED Executive Board Comment on the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, May 3, 2019, https://www.nased.org/news/2019/5/3/comment-on-the-vvsg; and EAC, Technical Guidelines Development Committee Meeting, September 19, 2019, p. 42, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/EAC09192019VerbatimTGDC%20%282%29.pdf. 43.

EAC, Manufacturer Registration Application, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Manufacturer_Registration_Application_EAC_001C_0820.pdf.

44. EAC, State Requirements and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Voting System Testing and Certification Program, August 3, 2023, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/State%20Requirements%20for%20Certification%202023.pdf. 45.

EAC, Voluntary Electronic Poll Book Certification Program. September 18, 2025, https://www.eac.gov/election-technology/estep-program/electronic-poll-books.

46.

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.

47.

52 U.S.C. §§21082-21083.

48.

52 U.S.C. §21085; and 52 U.S.C. §§21101-21102.

49.

EAC, Voluntary Guidance on Implementation of Statewide Voter Registration Lists, July 2005, pp. 6-7, https://web.archive.org/web/20170328070125/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/1/Implementing%20Statewide%20Voter%20Registration%20Lists.pdf.

50.

For more on the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. As noted above, the U.S. General Accounting Office was renamed the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2004.

51.

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, https://www.fec.gov/resources/about-fec/reports/20year.pdf.

52.

52 U.S.C. §§21131-21133. EAC, History of the National Clearinghouse on Election Administration, https://web.archive.org/web/20170328053335/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/28/History%20of%20the%20National%20Clearinghouse%20on%20Election%20Administration.pdf.

53.

52 U.S.C. §20981.

54.

For more on the EAVS, see CRS In Focus IF13056, The Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS): Overview and 2024 Findings, by Karen L. Shanton.

55.

See, for example, EAC, Studies and Reports, https://www.eac.gov/research-and-data/studies-and-reports; EAC, Election Security, https://www.eac.gov/voters/election-security; EAC, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources, https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/coronavirus-covid-19-resources; and EAC, Election Official Security, https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/election-official-security.

56.

52 U.S.C. §§20982-20986.

57.

52 U.S.C. §20508; and 52 U.S.C. §20302. See also EAC, Studies and Reports.

58.

EAC, Help America Vote College Program, https://www.eac.gov/grants/help-america-vote-college-program.

59.

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, 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.

60.

52 U.S.C. §20927. See also U.S. Congress, House, Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, prepared by Kevin F. McCumber, Clerk of the House of Representatives, 119^th Cong., January 19, 2025, p. 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 (GPO, 2013), p. 26; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee Jurisdiction, committee print, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., January 16, 2007 (GPO, 2007), p. 5.

61.

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.

62.

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.

63.

52 U.S.C. §20923.

64.

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.

65.

52 U.S.C. §20923.

66.

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.

67.

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. For example, in 2006, 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.

68.

52 U.S.C. §20924.

69.

52 U.S.C. §20924.

70.

EAC, Organizational Management Policy Statement, February 24, 2015, p. 2, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/EAC%20Organizational%20Management%20Policy%20Statement%20-%20Adopted%202-24-15.pdf.

71.

EAC, Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Report, January 2005, p. 7; EAC, Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Budget Justification, February 1, 2010, p. 5; EAC, Fiscal Year 2015 Interim Congressional Budget Justification, March 10, 2014, p. 5; EAC, Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Justification, February 9, 2016, p. 5; EAC, Fiscal Year 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, February 12, 2018, p. 4; EAC, Fiscal Year 2020 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 5; EAC, Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Budget Justification, February 10, 2020; EAC, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3; and EAC, Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 3. EAC Congressional Budget Justifications are available at https://www.eac.gov/about/budget-and-finance.

72.

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 (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 (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, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., August 2, 2007 (GPO, 2007), p. 178.

73.

U.S. Congress, 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 (GPO, 2011), p. 2. Some bills introduced in the 117^th and 118^th Congresses, such as the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (H.R. 8528, 117^th Congress; H.R. 4563, 118^th Congress), would have amended HAVA to cap the number of FTEs at the EAC at 55.

74.

EAC, Local Leadership Council, https://www.eac.gov/about-eac/local-leadership-council.

75.

52 U.S.C. §20942; and 52 U.S.C. §20962.

76.

52 U.S.C. §20924.

77.

52 U.S.C. §20987; 52 U.S.C. §20924; and 52 U.S.C. §20971.

78. 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, http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/07/07/fewer-letters-in-the-alphabet-soup-nacrc-iacreot-to-merge/. 79.

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.

80.

The federal representatives are the director of the U.S. Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program, the chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's (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 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 52 U.S.C. §20944.

81.

52 U.S.C. §20944.

82.

52 U.S.C. §20962; and 52 U.S.C. §20943.

83.

52 U.S.C. §20943.

84.

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.

85.

52 U.S.C. §20961.

86.

52 U.S.C. §20961.

87.

EAC, Local Leadership Council.

88.

EAC, 2022 Board of Advisors Annual Meeting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0wjZD1l4E.

89.

EAC, Charter of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Local Leadership Council, p. 2, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/LLC/EAC_Local_Leadership_Council_Charter.pdf.

90.

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.

91.

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.

92.

EAC, 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, https://web.archive.org/web/20191227211246/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.

93.

EAC Office of Inspector General (OIG), Report of Investigation: Preparation of the Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation Report, 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, 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, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/Redacted%20Report%20of%20Investigation%20-%20ADA.pdf.

94.

52 U.S.C. §20923. EAC, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, p. 1, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/FY_2003_Annual_Report.pdf.

95.

52 U.S.C. §20930.

96.

52 U.S.C. §21101; and 52 U.S.C. §§21081-21083.

97.

Committee on House Administration, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, June 17, 2004, pp. 53-54.

98.

Montjoy and Chapin, "The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: What Role in the Administration of Elections?" p. 622.

99.

52 U.S.C. §20902.

100.

EAC, "EAC Adopts 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines"; and Brennan Center for Justice, Voting System Failures: A Database Solution, 2010, p. 8, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-system-failures-database-solution. According to information available on the EAC's website, only one other voting system appears to have been certified before November 1, 2010. EAC, Certified Voting Systems, https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/certified-voting-systems.

101.

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, https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/resolutions/2015/nass-resolution-eac-summer15-_0.pdf.

102.

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.

103.

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, 113^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 4, 2013 (GPO, 2013), pp. 6-7, 54.

104.

Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act (H.R. 672, 112^th 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, 113^th Congress); Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 1994, 113^th Congress); Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 195, 114^th Congress); and Election Assistance Commission Termination Act (H.R. 634, 115^th Congress).

105. Amanda Becker, "The Phantom Commission," Roll Call, October 31, 2012, https://rollcall.com/2012/10/31/the-phantom-commission/. 106.

EAC, Statement of Gracia M. Hillman on the Occasion of her Resignation as Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, December 6, 2010, https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/GH%20Statement_12_06_10.pdf; and EAC, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7, https://web.archive.org/web/20170328053540/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/FY-2012-EAC-Activities-Report-Website-Scanned.pdf.

107.

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 (GPO, 2014), p. 18.

108.

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. EAC, 2012 Activities Report, p. 7.

109.

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.

110. 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, https://www.eac.gov/news/2019/02/06/commissioners-hovland-palmer-sworn-in-to-restore-quorum-at-eac/; EAC, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. 111.

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, 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.

112.

For more on the HAVA funding Congress has provided in response to recent developments, see CRS Report R46646, Election Administration: Federal Grant Programs for States and Localities, by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS Report WPD00035, Elections Podcast: Federal Role in Elections Funding, by Karen L. Shanton.

113.

See, for example, EAC, 2018 Annual Report, pp. 31-33, https://web.archive.org/web/20190322203853/https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/EACannualreport_2018.pdf.

114.

See, for example, EAC, Election Security; EAC, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources; and EAC, Election Official Security.

115.

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.

116.

See, for example, U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, report to accompany H.R. 672, 112^th Cong., 1^st sess., June 2, 2011, H.Rept. 112-100 (GPO, 2011), pp. 54-56; and U.S. Congress, 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 Cong., 1^st sess., December 30, 2011, H.Rept. 112-360 (GPO, 2011), p. 14.

117.

See, for example, the Election Integrity Act of 2016 (H.R. 6072).

118.

See, for example, the EAC Improvements Act of 2013 (H.R. 2017) and the Secure America's Vote Act of 2005 (H.R. 3094).

119.

See, for example, U.S. Const. art. 1. §4. cl. 1.

120.

Each of these options might have its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, adding new advisory body members provides for additional expert input into agency activities but might give certain stakeholders more direct access to EAC actions and decisionmaking than some Members might prefer. For one possible concern about such access, see Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, August 2, 2007, p. 87; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, Oversight Hearing on the Election Assistance Commission, hearing, 110^th Cong., 1^st sess., March 12, 2008 (GPO, 2008), pp. 34-37.

121.

See, for example, the "Initial Setup" and "Efforts to Terminate" sections of this report.

122.

See, for example, Letter from Rep. Steny Hoyer et al. to Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen et al., March 19, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20181222200937/https://raskin.house.gov/sites/raskin.house.gov/files/FY%2019%20EAC%20Appropriations%20Letter_0.pdf.

123.

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.

124.

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).

125. See, for example, Edward Perez, "Perspectives from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Public Hearing in Perspectives from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Public Hearing in
Memphis,Memphis,”" OSET Institute, April 12, 2019, April 12, 2019, https://www.osetinstitute.org/blog/2019/4/12/perspectives-from-the-us-elections-assistance-commission-public-hearing-in-memphis. See also footnote 40 in the . See also footnote 40 in the "“Voting System Guidelines, Testing, and
Certification”Certification" section of this report. section of this report.
Congressional Research Service
R45770 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED
29

---