link to page 1 
Updated February 11, 2019
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: An Overview
The 2000 presidential election exposed weaknesses in state
The EAC has helped establish the new Election
election systems. Congress responded with the Help
Infrastructure Subsector (EIS). For example, it has served
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P.L. 107-252). Among
as an intermediary between DHS and state and local
other changes, such as setting certain national requirements
election officials, helped launch the EIS’s Government and
for election administration, HAVA created a federal agency
Sector Coordinating Councils, and participated in EIS
to help states, territories, and localities administer federal
training exercises. For more on the EIS, see CRS In Focus
elections: the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
IF10677, The Designation of Election Systems as Critical
Infrastructure, by Eric A. Fischer.
Proposals have since been introduced both to terminate the
EAC and to extend or expand it. Most recently, the agency
Structure
has taken on new roles as part of the federal response to
The EAC consists of a four-member Commission, an Office
attempted foreign interference in the 2016 elections.
of Inspector General (OIG), and a staff, assisted by three
advisory bodies: a Standards Board, a Board of Advisors,
Duties
and a Technical Guidelines Development Committee.
States, territories, and localities have traditionally had
primary responsibility for administering elections. Some
The Standards Board and Board of Advisors review
were concerned that creating a federal election
proposed voluntary guidance, including the VVSG, and
administration agency would shift that balance.
consult on tasks like research and long-term planning. The
Technical Guidelines Development Committee, which
Congress responded by restricting the EAC’s ability to
includes representatives of the two boards and is chaired by
compel state, territorial, or local action. The EAC is not
the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
charged with enforcing HAVA’s national requirements, and
Technology (NIST), helps develop the VVSG.
its rulemaking authority is limited to the federal mail-based
voter registration form established by the National Voter
The members of the Commission, who are required to have
Registration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-31).
elections experience or expertise, are recommended by
congressional leaders, nominated by the President, and
Most of the EAC’s duties are aimed instead at incentivizing
subject to Senate confirmation. No more than two of the
action via funding or facilitating action by collecting and
four may be affiliated with the same political party, and
sharing information. HAVA assigned the agency a number
each may serve up to two four-year terms.
of responsibilities, including
HAVA mandates a three-vote majority for actions that
administering formula payments to states, territories,
require Commission approval, such as adopting the VVSG.
and the District of Columbia (D.C.) to make general
The EAC lacked that policymaking quorum from December
improvements to election administration, replace lever
2010 to January 2015 and again for just over 10 months
and punch card voting systems, and comply with
following the departure of Commissioner Matthew
HAVA’s national requirements;
Masterson in March 2018; see Figure 1 for details.
awarding grants for youth voter participation initiatives
and voting technology research and pilot programs;
Figure 1. EAC Commissioner Terms of Service
testing and certifying voting systems;
accrediting voting system testing laboratories;
adopting voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG)
and voluntary guidance for complying with HAVA’s
national requirements;
collecting and sharing data and best practices; and
conducting election administration research.
The EAC has also taken on new roles in response to foreign
election interference efforts. According to the U.S.
Intelligence Community, Russian hackers targeted state
Source: CRS, based on data from the EAC and Congress.gov.
election systems in 2016. The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) responded in January 2017 by
In 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Donald
designating election systems as critical infrastructure.
Palmer to succeed Commissioner Masterson and Benjamin
Hovland to the seat vacated by Commissioner Rosemary
Rodriguez in 2009. Both nominees were confirmed by the
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: An Overview
Senate in January 2019 and took office in February 2019,
restoring the Commission’s quorum.
Table 1. Proposed and Enacted Funding for EAC Operations from FY2007 to FY2019 (nominal $, in millions)
Figures for the House and Senate reflect chamber-passed, committee-reported, or other proposed levels, as indicated
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
Enacted
11.3
13.1
12.9
13.4
13.1
8.8
8.8
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.6
-
President
12.0
12.2
12.7
13.3
13.6
10.5
8.8
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.3
7.7
7.7
Senate*
12.1
12.2
12.7
13.3
13.6
11.5
8.8
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.7
7.7
House*
12.2
12.2
12.9
13.4
12.7
5.2
4.4
0.0
0.0
4.8
4.9
5.5
8.6
Source: CRS, based on data from the President’s budget requests and appropriations bil s, drafts, and reports.
Notes: Figures are from appropriations for EAC salaries and expenses, including funds designated for the OIG. They are rounded and do not
reflect rescissions, sequestration reductions, or funds designated for NIST, mock election grants, or the Help America Vote College Program.
* Figures for the House and Senate indicate the latest chamber-specific action: bold for a chamber-passed bil , regular text for a committee-
reported measure, and italics for the Senate subcommittee bil in FY2015 and the Senate committee chairman’s draft in FY2018.
Funding
Legislative Activity
The EAC has received funding for operational expenses,
HAVA authorized funding for EAC operations for three
such as staff salaries, and for the payments and grants it
years but provided for Commissioners to serve up to eight
administers. The majority of its funding to date has been for
and did not include a sunset provision for the agency. That
formula payments to states, territories, and D.C.
has left room for debate about how permanent the EAC
should be.
HAVA authorized $3.65 billion for formula payments.
Congress appropriated close to $3 billion of that total—
Some say that the duties the EAC performs are essential to
$650 million for the U.S. General Services Administration
assuring fair and accurate elections and that they could not
to distribute while the EAC was being set up and the rest to
be carried out as effectively by other agencies. Emphasizing
the EAC—in the first two fiscal years after HAVA was
that the EAC is the only federal agency dedicated to helping
enacted. It appropriated another $285 million to the EAC
states, territories, and localities administer elections, they
for formula payments between FY2008 and FY2010.
have called for it to be officially reauthorized. In some
cases, they have also proposed expanding its duties or
Almost 90% of the HAVA funding for formula payments
authority. Such proposals have ranged from adding new
had been appropriated by the end of FY2010. Citing the
versions of its existing responsibilities, such as
distribution of most of that funding, as well as concerns
administering new grants, to making more extensive
about the EAC’s efficiency and effectiveness, the House
changes, such as striking the limit on rulemaking.
Appropriations Committee recommended reducing the
President’s FY2012 request for EAC operations by 50%.
Others have viewed the agency as more temporary.
Legislation to terminate the EAC was introduced in each
The Committee recommended similar or more substantial
Congress from the 112th through the 115th. When legislation
cuts in subsequent years. The House approved some of the
to terminate the EAC was first introduced, the agency had
Committee’s recommendations, although the enacted
distributed most of the formula payments HAVA
appropriations bills have hewed more closely to
authorized it to administer and completed much of the
Presidential and Senate proposals; see Table 1 for details.
research HAVA assigned it to conduct. The previous year,
the National Association of Secretaries of State—which
Congress appropriated additional funding to the EAC for
represents many states’ top election officials—had also
HAVA formula payments in March 2018, following the
renewed a resolution calling for the EAC’s elimination. As
reports of 2016 foreign interference efforts. According to
a result, some Members of Congress stated in the 112th
the explanatory statement accompanying the bill, Congress
Congress that the agency had outlived its usefulness and
intended the $380 million appropriation to be used to help
should be disbanded, with any outstanding duties
secure elections. For more on this funding, see CRS In
transferred to other entities.
Focus IF10925, State Election Reform Payments: FY2018
Appropriations, by Karen L. Shanton.
The 115th Congress saw legislative activity on both sides of
the debate. Legislation to terminate the EAC was
In the following funding cycle—for FY2019—the House
reintroduced in January 2017. There were also proposals to
Appropriations Committee recommended increasing
extend or expand the agency, including bills that would
funding for EAC operations above the President’s budget
direct it to award grants for post-election audits and to form
request. The FY2019 appropriations bill had not yet been
an election cybersecurity advisory panel. None of that
enacted as of this writing, but the House-passed bill reflects
legislation was enacted.
the Committee’s recommendation and the Senate-passed
bill matches the President’s request.
For more on the EAC, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help
America Vote Act and Election Administration: Overview
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission: An Overview
and Selected Issues for the 2016 Election, by Arthur L.
Karen L. Shanton, Analyst in American National
Burris and Eric A. Fischer.
Government
IF10981
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.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10981 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED