    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                                     of the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                     Held in Washington, DC, April 14, 2011

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    67-345                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
    PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia            Ranking Minority Member
    AARON SCHOCK, Illinois               ZOE LOFGREN, California
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
    RICHARD NUGENT, Florida

                               Professional Staff

                 Philip Kiko, Staff Director & General Counsel
                      Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                           Subcommittee on Elections

                      GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman
    AARON SCHOCK, Illinois               CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
    RICHARD NUGENT, Florida              ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana

           H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                             Subcommittee on Elections,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Harper, Nugent, Rokita and
    Gonzalez.
        Staff Present: Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel;
    Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk;
    Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
    Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel;
    Karin Moore, Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff
    Director; Kyle Andersen, Minority Press Secretary; Matt
    Defreitas, Minority Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Minority
    Elections Staff; Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; and
    Gregg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff.
        Mr. Harper. I now call to order the Committee on House
    Administration Subcommittee on Elections oversight hearing
    regarding H.R. 672, which is legislation terminating the
    Election Assistance Commission. The hearing record will remain
    open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any
    material that they wish to be included therein. A quorum is
    present, so we may proceed.
        The Subcommittee on Elections oversees Federal elections
    and considers legislative means to improve and protect the
    integrity of our electoral system. To that end, in the 112th
    Congress this committee has held oversight hearings on military
    and overseas voting, the 2010 elections, and the operations and
    budget request of the EAC. At that hearing we explored multiple
    operational and managerial problems at the EAC and the
    statutory responsibilities that are complete.
        Today I look forward to discussing H.R. 672, which would
    terminate the Commission and transfer its remaining
    responsibilities to a more appropriate agency. HAVA, passed in
    2002, required updated voting equipment and standardized
    election-related procedures across this country. The
    legislation also established the Election Assistance Commission
    to disburse funds and assist States in their obligation to meet
    the requirements of HAVA.
        Today, nearly a decade later, after most States have met
    the major requirements of HAVA, little funding remains to be
    disbursed. And yet with the bloated, management-heavy budget
    and a demonstrated inability to manage its resources wisely,
    the EAC continues to operate providing little, if any, real
    assistance to the States at significant cost to taxpayers.
        The Commission's chronic issues have included an astounding
    doubling in staff, while the Commission's responsibilities did
    not increase; a budget that spends more on internal operational
    costs than actual election assistance; questionable funding
    allocation decisions; and hiring processes that have led to
    multiple discrimination claims. In totality, the Commission has
    simply lived passed its usefulness.
        As another example of the EAC's inability to function
    effectively, following an oversight hearing last month, this
    subcommittee sent written follow-up questions to the EAC with a
    response deadline of April 6th. Today it is April 14, and we
    still have not received responses to some seemingly
    straightforward questions.
        Finally, I note that when HAVA was on the House floor in
    2002, Congressman Hoyer cited a study showing that 4- to 6-
    million people could not vote or did not have their votes
    counted in the 2000 elections. In 2008, a successor study said
    the comparable figure was 4- to 5-million, after the EAC had
    existed for 6 years and spent over $3 billion. Now the EAC's
    election programs have shrunk to one-third of its budget, so
    future improvements seems unlikely.
        I believe the States benefited from Federal assistance to
    update voting machines and election procedures, no doubt; but
    the funding for those payments has ended, and the Federal
    Government cannot afford to keep spending money on an agency
    that has not produced measurable improvement.
        I look forward to discussing these issues with our
    witnesses, particularly the minority whip, who, during his time
    on the committee, was instrumental in HAVA's passage. I look
    forward to hearing their thoughts on these troubling practices
    and why in both 2005 and 2010 the National Association of
    Secretaries of State adopted resolutions calling on Congress
    not to reauthorize or fund the EAC, why the very beneficiaries
    of the Commission's work no longer feel it is needed.
        Since introducing H.R. 672, I have heard from many
    elections officials from across the country who have provided
    their suggestions and advice. I appreciate and value their
    input and suggestions, including maintaining the voting system
    testing and certification programs, and maintaining a formal
    role for election officials in the development of the voluntary
    voting system guidelines. Again, I appreciate this input and
    plan to incorporate much of it in an amendment to this bill.
    These are the types of constructive ideas I look forward to
    discussing today.
        At a time of in excess of $1.6 trillion deficits and a
    $14.3 trillion debt, continuing to spend money on the EAC is
    unjustifiable. Simply put, if we can't cut spending by
    eliminating a commission that has so obviously outlived its
    usefulness and that is opposed by many of the elections
    officials that it is supposedly serving, then the system is
    broken.
        Again, I thank each of our witnesses that are going to be
    here today and would like now to recognize my colleague Mr.
    Gonzalez, the ranking member of this subcommittee, for the
    purpose of providing an opening statement.Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now, I
    remember when the Help America Vote Act was written and passed.
    I wasn't on the committee at that time, but I fought hard
    during the drafting to fix some of the problems that I saw were
    inherent in the draft bill. Mr. Hoyer probably remembers our
    discussions way back then. And I did have a strong reservation,
    but not for the reasons that are cited today as justifying
    passage of H.R. 672.
        I want to make some acknowledgments. It is true that the
    Election Assistance Commission, having been created, has had
    its problems. No one denies that, including the Commissioners
    and staff. But it is not the first agency to have problems, and
    it was faced with a tremendous task: tackling the challenges of
    voters in 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
    Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and the
    thousands of different electoral districts within them. Perhaps
    it was in recognition of this challenge that during the 109th
    Congress the Republican-controlled Congress lifted the cap on
    EAC employment so they could staff up to tackle those goals.
        The EAC remains a tiny Federal agency compared to others in
    our Federal Government. The chairman has mentioned the
    disproportionate amount of its budget that EAC spends on
    personnel costs, and this is one of the reasons for that. The
    reason, of course, is that every agency, no matter how large,
    has to fill certain requirements. You need someone handling
    accounting and human resources whether you have 5 people or 50.
    In business they call these ``fixed costs'', and they are one
    of the economies of scale enjoyed by large companies.
        I know that EAC has tried to minimize the relative cost of
    their small size, first by outsourcing some functions to GAO,
    and now by cooperating with other small agencies to share some
    of those fixed costs.
        But the real point isn't whether EAC is spending a lot or a
    little on personnel. The real question is, Does the work EAC
    produces justify the money that we spend on it. Now, I am of
    the opinion that few things are more important in our country
    and more deserving our support, including financial support,
    than ensuring that every American citizen's right to vote is
    protected, but that doesn't mean that I will sit still while a
    single penny is wasted on an agency that isn't helping to do
    that. So is EAC helping America to vote? It is my opinion, Mr.
    Chairman, that the answer is yes.
        The chairman and others of my colleagues have mentioned
    that the National Association of Secretaries of State, a letter
    written some time ago calling for the dissolution of EAC. Of
    course, that resolution was first adopted in February 2005, as
    pointed out, when EAC was barely 2 years old and certainly
    going through the terrible twos.
        It was renewed last summer, and Mr. Rokita and Secretary of
    State Browning have both cited the resolution. But I notice
    that the renewal wasn't sufficiently important to the
    association for them to update the resolution. So it still
    calls for EAC to fade out of existence, quote, ``after the
    conclusion of the 2006 Federal general election.''
        I also note we have had the president of the association
    testifying before this subcommittee just a few weeks ago, and
    Minnesota's Secretary of State Ritchie had many complimentary
    things to say about EAC. So the opinion among Secretaries of
    State is clearly not unanimous.
        There is a further point that needs to be made. The
    secretary of state is the chief election official in most, if
    not all, of our States. But, that means they are like the
    general who organizes the campaign. It is the local election
    officials who are on the front lines dealing directly with the
    voters and struggling to ensure that our elections, the very
    foundation of our democracy, run smoothly.
        And what they do and what do they have to say when they are
    doing it? At our last hearing Susan Gill, supervisor of
    elections of Citrus County, Florida, spoke glowingly of EAC and
    how, quote, ``the Help America Vote Act provided the continuity
    needed on the national level, but left the states to devise how
    best to serve their voters.'' I have never heard a better
    description of how our federal system is supposed to work.
        Now, my own election official--because we all know that all
    politics, voting activity and how it is conducted, is truly
    local--but Jacque Callanen Bexar County, Texas, she speaks of
    EAC's ``terrific outreach'' and ``fantastic'' services. And
    Chairman Lungren's local election official, Ms. LaVine, speaks
    highly of EAC in her written testimony.
        Indeed, Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record a total of seven letters from
    local election officials from Virginia to California,
    Republicans and Democrats and nonpartisan, as well as letters
    from the League of Women Voters and the Leadership Council on
    Civil Rights and Human Rights.
        Mr. Harper. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.012

        Mr. Gonzalez. Now, I was surprised to read that one of the
    witnesses will testify that the problems EAC was created to
    address ``are essentially resolved,'' and that there is no need
    for EAC. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone would say that while
    we are still in the midst of the Wisconsin recount in which
    14,000 votes went missing, votes that could be decisive in that
    race.
        Now, Wisconsin is a race for a State office, but can you
    imagine how much trouble this would cause if it was a federal
    office that was in dispute? We don't have to imagine. The
    citizens of Minnesota had to make do with only one senator for
    6 months in 2009, less than 2 years ago, as the state struggled
    to administer the 2008 election, and next year is a
    presidential year that presents its own set of challenges.
        EAC does have its problems. It has for some time. But it
    also remedied many problems, and the officials who run our
    elections say that EAC helps them do so better than any other
    agency. In such a situation, the proper response is to improve
    EAC, not throw up our hands in frustration.
        In 1788, the country faced a problem: It had a government
    that didn't work. Money was wasted, and problems were mounting
    as the government's central purposes--establishing Justice,
    ensuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence
    and promoting the general Welfare--weren't being met. They
    could have said, ``Well, we tried. The government we created
    did the main thing we created it for when in the Revolutionary
    War, but now it has just broken down, and we will dissolve
    it.'' They could have said that, and some people did. But other
    people, we call them the Founders, said, No. Instead they
    created an improved government, one that has served us well for
    222 years, but which itself has required 27 amendments, thus
    far, to improve its functioning.
        If they could do that, which is monumental in our history,
    I think we can tweak, and we can improve and have a more
    effective EAC. It's not a question of dissolving and doing away
    with something that is so important in protecting the rights of
    all Americans to cast their vote.
        Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you. Does any other Member wish to be
    recognized for the purpose of an opening statement?
        The gentleman from Indiana Mr. Rokita is recognized.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We are hearing talking about ending a commission that has
    become a burden to the American taxpayers and simply, to my
    friend Mr. Gonzalez, is not needed. The Founders specifically
    said this in the Constitution when they left the procedures and
    processes surrounding our elections to the States to quite
    honestly do a much better job than any Federal bureaucracy can
    possibly dream of doing.
        I know a little bit about this because as former secretary
    of state for Indiana, I have practical experience with the
    Election Assistance Commission and with conducting elections at
    the State level.
        The EAC was created by the Help America Vote Act to help
    States replace old punch-card and lever-voting systems and to
    implement statewide voter registration databases. These were
    necessary updates, I certainly agree, due to the voting machine
    issues illuminated in the 2000 Presidential elections. HAVA
    authorized $10 million per year for EAC, but last year the EAC
    actually spent $18 million. The budget request we received from
    EAC this year reflects administrative costs as 51 percent of
    the budget. Such funds are a waste.
        In a hearing held in March, the committee heard firsthand
    accounts of the EAC's bloated budget, including an ever-growing
    staff with shrinking responsibilities and discriminatory hiring
    practices. Additionally it was found that the EAC was spending
    more money on management than on actual programs.
        Mr. Chairman, like the fate of so many of the Federal
    Government's ideas and programs, this one has become nothing
    more than a large bureaucracy supporting a small program
    mandate that has largely been completed at this point. In 2005,
    I authored, and the National Association of Secretaries of
    State voted on, a resolution to dissolve EAC after the 2006
    election. Congressman Gonzalez's point there is correct. That
    resolution was based on the fact that the task outlined in HAVA
    was nearly completed at the time.
        Where Congressman Gonzalez, I believe, is wrong, Mr.
    Chairman, is that there was another resolution. NASS renewed
    the call to dissolve the Commission in 2010. Furthermore, Mr.
    Chairman, that vote at the National Association of Secretaries
    of State was nearly unanimous. Only two of our members voted
    against it, and we had more Democratic secretaries of state, I
    believe, at the time than we had Republicans. So it was
    certainly bipartisan. Furthermore, Secretary Ritchie, who
    Congressman Gonzalez mentioned, voted for the resolution to get
    rid of the EAC.
        It is now 2011, and the EAC still exists. When the
    Commission was created, the Congress agreed that it should only
    be authorized, Mr. Chairman, for 3 years. Five years after
    that--the authorization date, after the scheduled
    deauthorization, the American taxpayers are still footing the
    bill, and the amount of work that is getting done can be done
    by some other agency, like the Federal Election Commission.
        At a time of crushing debt and deficits, the money spent on
    EAC cannot be justified. I do not believe that the creation of
    the EAC was necessary in the first place.
        As I noted earlier, the 2000 Presidential election brought
    awareness of needed changes to our voting system and
    registration databases. And with some assistance from the EAC
    at the time, the States--the States--took care of the problems.
    We didn't need another Federal bureaucracy. Furthermore, those
    changes could have been made by, like I said, other already
    existing entities.
        To date we have spent $147 million on the EAC, and, again,
    it wasn't necessary. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
    chairman's bill to eliminate this duplicative, overly
    administrative agency. Supporting the EAC and its bloat, and
    its waste, and its inefficiency, and its ineffectiveness by
    comparing it to the bloat, the waste, the inefficiency, and
    ineffectiveness of other agencies is not the answer. That is
    not an answer at all. That attitude is what is part of the
    problem of this growing Federal Government that many of us were
    sent here to get under control.
        I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. I look
    forward to hearing them, and I want to especially welcome my
    Sigma Chi fraternity brother Steny Hoyer for being here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Rokita.
        And it is now my privilege to introduce our first witness,
    who we are especially pleased to have here given your service
    on this committee, and I know your interest, long-time
    interest, on elections reform. And we could truly say you are a
    witness who needs no introduction, but you are now serving your
    16th term.
        Congressman Hoyer represents the Fifth Congressional
    District of Maryland and is the longest-serving Member of the
    House from Maryland in our history. First elected in 1981,
    Congressman Hoyer has had a distinguished career, having served
    as deputy majority whip, cochair of the Democrat Steering
    Committee, chair of the Democratic Caucus and majority leader.
    In the 112th Congress, he is the House Democratic whip, a
    position he also held from 2003 to 2007. And, of course,
    Congressman Hoyer is a former member of the Committee on House
    Administration and served as ranking member during
    consideration of the Help America Vote Act that created the
    Election Assistance Commission. We are honored to have
    Congressman Hoyer here and thank him for his dedication to
    public service.
        Congressman, we look forward to hearing from you today, I
    obviously don't need to give you any instructions other than
    you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. STENY HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Chairman Harper, members of
    the committee, and Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate the opportunity
    to appear here before you. I want to thank you for inviting me
    to testify today on the important work of the Election
    Assistance Commission and why we must make sure that that work
    continues.
        The work of the EAC matters to voters who deserve assurance
    that their vote will count on election day and to poll workers
    who across the country are being asked to do more with less and
    still ensure that polling places operate smoothly.
        I would make as an aside the observation that not only do
    the States obviously conduct State elections, but they conduct,
    as we all know, extraordinarily important Federal elections. In
    the first 210 years or 15, 20 years of our existence, the
    Federal Government gave no assistance to them to do so.
        Abolishing the EAC would be an invitation, in my opinion,
    to repeat the mistakes that blemished our democracy in 2000.
    The debacle of the 2000 Presidential election embarrassed the
    United States and showed just how flawed elections systems
    were. Regardless of their feelings about the controversial
    outcome of that election, Republicans and Democrats alike
    agreed that the Federal Government had a duty to step in and
    improve election systems and procedures so that every qualified
    citizen's vote is, in fact, counted; to provide States the
    financial and informational resources--I stress informational
    resources--to upgrade their voting and registration systems,
    train their poll workers, and improve access for disabled
    voters. The result was the bipartisan Help America Vote Act,
    which I was proud to help write when I was the committee's
    ranking member. I might say that a very distinguished member,
    Bob Ney, worked with me on that and in a bipartisan way.
        HAVA, which established the EAC, overwhelmingly passed the
    House 357 to 48. That was, of course, when your party, Mr.
    Chairman, was in control of the House of Representatives. This
    was not imposed by Democrats on the country, it was supported
    in a bipartisan way and overwhelmingly by the secretaries of
    state as well. It passed the Senate with only two votes against
    it. So this was not a partisanly imposed bureaucracy on the
    neck of the American people or the States. It was in a
    bipartisan way decided that this was an important addition to
    our election monitoring and effectiveness.
        Before HAVA, the Federal Government worked to guarantee
    voting rights, but it had no serious involvement in the nuts
    and bolts of elections, conditions in our polling places and
    voter registration offices that ensure that our precious voting
    rights are translated into a vote that counts. That is not
    simply a concern of the State officials, which it is, it is
    clearly a concern of the Congress and the American people
    generally.
        I presume the people of Indiana are concerned about whether
    or not we have fair voting in Maryland. Clearly the Maryland
    voters are concerned whether we have fair voting in Indiana.
    Why? Because the votes in both States affect who the President
    of the United States is going to be, so that there is a
    national interest in elections, not just a State interest.
        For over 200 years the Federal Government in effect got a
    free ride from States when it came to elections. And, in fact,
    as I am sure the former secretary of state of Indiana knows, my
    brother in Sigma Chi, traditionally all States, all governments
    have had trouble with resources. Where was it easiest to cut?
    Elections.
        Congress passed HAVA because it recognized that the Federal
    Government had to step up to the plate with the resources to
    help ensure that every vote is, in fact, counted. HAVA
    authorized 3.8 billion in grants to States to buy new voting
    machines, improve voter registration procedures and train poll
    workers. HAVA also created the Election Assistance Commission,
    a four-member bipartisan Commission, which only has two members
    right now, whose job is to administer grants to States and
    provide States with ongoing guidance. It is that really
    function that I think is a critically important one so that we
    have a national perspective as well as a State-by-State
    perspective. Just as important, it provides expert advice on
    how polling places and voting machines can be fully accessible
    to disabled voters, which Mr. Ney and I were both very focused
    on.
        The EAC has created a comprehensive program to test State
    voting systems for accuracy. And use of this program has been
    shown to save our State millions of dollars and up to 12 months
    of testing time.
        The EAC is dedicated to transparency and makes its methods
    and test reports public so that the public can hold both the
    EAC and voting machine manufacturers accountable. In addition,
    the EAC develops best practices for Armed Forces to ensure that
    the votes of our troops are accounted fairly. Let me emphasize
    that. It also is involved, and we have made very sure, with
    making sure that those folks from Indiana or Maryland or Texas
    or any other State, including your own, Mr. Chairman, are
    treated fairly, notwithstanding they may be deployed to
    Afghanistan or Iraq or some other trouble spot in the world.
    Prior to the EAC, a narrow range of voting-related activities
    was conducted by the Federal Election Commission.
        Let me comment on the comment the former secretary of state
    made about the Federal Election Commission perhaps could
    undertake the responsibility. The focus of the Federal Election
    Commission and the EAC are totally different. The Federal
    Election Commission is concerned about the financing of Federal
    elections and the enforcement of financing laws. They have
    their hands full, as all of us know. Totally different
    perspective than how elections are run as opposed to how
    candidates run. The FEC's mission is to ensure that campaign
    finance laws are obeyed. As I said, HAVA's lead sponsors
    quickly learned that voting-related issues are not the same by
    any stretch of the imagination. Transferring most of the EAC's
    function to the FEC, in my opinion, would be a mistake.
        The EAC, as all of us have observed and with which I agree,
    has not been, is not now a perfect agency. Does it need
    oversight? Yes. Does it need efficiencies? Yes. Should you as
    the committee of jurisdiction and the Appropriations Committee
    as well look at these, make cuts where cuts are appropriate?
    Certainly. But should that mean that, therefore, we should
    abolish an agency which the Congress overwhelmingly decided was
    a useful, an appropriate function for the Federal Government to
    follow? I think not.
        Mr. Chairman, I would submit the balance of my statement
    for the record and urge you as you consider this to improve, do
    not eliminate, because if we eliminate it, it would mean that
    the Federal Government will have no effective participation in
    ensuring that every vote counts, that the Voting Rights Act
    means something for every American whomever they might be, and
    Federal elections as well as State elections are held in a
    manner to give confidence to every voter that his or her vote
    will count and that the votes of every other American will
    count. And I thank you for this opportunity.
        Mr. Harper. And we thank you for being here, Congressman
    Hoyer. Thank you for your leadership in the House and your
    history of leadership on this committee, and we appreciate your
    insight.
        Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you.
        We will now call the second panel up, please.
        I now would like to introduce our second panel of
    witnesses, some who probably just flew in. We appreciate that
    dedication to get here and to share your testimony.
        Our first witness, the Honorable Delbert Hosemann, is the
    secretary of state of the great State of Mississippi. The
    secretary is serving his first term, having been elected in
    2007. As chief elections officer from Mississippi, Secretary
    Hosemann has sought to protect Mississippians' right to vote by
    visiting precincts around the State during elections, working
    very closely with the circuit clerks and elections
    commissioners, and supporting voter education programs such as
    Promote the Vote for young Mississippians and Vote in Honor of
    a Veteran.
        The Honorable Kurt Browning is Florida's secretary of
    state, having been appointed this past January. He also served
    as secretary of state during the previous administration,
    serving from December 2006 until April 2010. Prior to that
    appointment Secretary Browning spent 26 years as the supervisor
    of elections for Pasco County, where he was extensively
    involved in Florida's election community, serving as the
    president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of
    Elections; and as a member of Governor Jeb Bush's Task Force on
    Election Procedures, Standards and Technology; and as a member
    of the State Planning Committee for the Help America Vote Act.
        Mrs. Jill LaVine is the registrar of voters for Sacramento
    County, where she is responsible for the day-to-day operations
    of the division of voter registration and elections. She has
    been registrar for almost 8 years and has worked in elections
    for over 24 years. In addition to her election duties, Mrs.
    LaVine is also responsible for the redistricting of the
    supervisoral boundaries following the 2010 census, a very
    exciting and thankless job. She is the cochair of the
    legislation committee for the California Association of Clerks
    and Election Officials, and is also a member of the election
    center. She has testified before Congress on paper audit
    trails, and therefore the EAC, regarding accessibility
    standards for voting systems.
        Mr. John Fortier was a research fellow at the American
    Enterprise Institute, where he was the principal contributor to
    the AEI-Brookings Institution Election Reform Project and
    executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission.
    This month he joined the Bipartisan Policy Center as director
    of the Democracy Project.
        You each have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and we
    will look forward to hearing your testimony shortly.
        I would like now to recognize the distinguished
    Representative from New Hampshire, Congressman Charlie Bass,
    who will introduce our final witness.
        Congressman Bass, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bass. And I thank the chairman for your indulgence. And
    I understand that it isn't customary to have double
    introductions, if you will, for witnesses, but New Hampshire's
    secretary of state Bill Gardner is a special friend and a great
    citizen of the State of New Hampshire. He was elected secretary
    of state, I think, a couple of years after I graduated from
    college, and that is the New Hampshire tradition. We have had
    probably no more than a half dozen, maybe a couple more,
    secretaries of state in the history of our State. Secretary
    Gardner has served with distinction and integrity now for many
    years. He is a Democrat who has been elected time and time
    again by a legislature that for almost all of his career has
    been controlled by the Republican Party.
        I spent a considerable amount of time and energy when I was
    in the New Hampshire Legislature and the New Hampshire State
    Senate working on issues involving elections and ethics, and
    Secretary Gardner was at my side for most of that period--all
    of that period of time. And I think during that time we made
    good progress on various--many areas of election law in New
    Hampshire and also ethics.
        Bill Gardner is also a personal friend, an advisor, and
    probably one of the less nationally or State-known individuals
    who wields power beyond any other secretary of state in the
    Nation because he has, in essence, the sole power to set the
    date of the New Hampshire primary, which is, of course, the
    first in the Nation and will remain so forevermore.
        So without any further ado, I bring you my good friend, the
    secretary of state, Bill Gardner.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Congressman Bass.
        I thank each of you for being here.
        As I mentioned with Congressman Hoyer, the committee has
    received your written testimonies. At the appropriate time I
    will recognize each of you for 5 minutes to present a summary
    of that submission.
        To help you keep the time, you will see in front of you a
    timing device. The device will be green for 4 minutes and will
    turn yellow when you have--1 minute remains. When the light
    turn red, it means that your time has expired, and we would ask
    you to bring it in for a landing at that point.
        So we will begin with Secretary Gardner and ask you to
    please proceed.

     STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM M. GARDNER, NEW HAMPSHIRE SECRETARY OF
     STATE; DELBERT HOSEMANN, MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE; KURT
    BROWNING, FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE; JILL LAVINE, REGISTRAR OF
       VOTERS, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; AND JOHN FORTIER, AMERICAN
                          ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

                    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. GARDNER

        Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
    members of the committee. I was going to say something a little
    special about Congressman Rokita. And I want to thank
    Congressman Bass, who is like having a brother here with me,
    because we go back a long way. I worked with him when he served
    in the house, when he served in the senate. He chaired the
    elections committee in the senate and the ethics committee. He
    is from a distinguished longtime family; his grandfather was
    Governor, his father was a Congressman and then a Senate
    President.
        I will get to the business.
        I support this legislation wholeheartedly. I do so with
    very strong passion. When this Commission was established in
    2004 and had its first meeting in March of that year, within 2
    months it was making national headlines all across the country
    because letters had been sent out that hinted at having the EAC
    become the authority for determining whether we had a
    Presidential election or not in 2004--later in 2004. Actually
    when we went to our conference that summer, it was the 100th
    anniversary of the association, and as we talked about it
    amongst ourselves, that was the news in all the States. What
    was this new upshot Federal agency, what was it? And how could
    this be?
        In my State there were several newspaper editorials that
    referred to how the country had an election in the middle of
    the Civil War, had an election during World War II. How can
    this be? So we made a statement as secretaries. We sent a
    letter. The letter made it to Congress. Within a week or so the
    Congress voted 419 to 2 saying that there is no Federal agency
    that is going to have this kind of authority; the States run
    the elections.
        Well, after that, legislation was introduced in both the
    House and the Senate that would increase the authority of EAC,
    and give it rulemaking. That gave us a lot of concern, and in
    2005 we passed this resolution saying that when the States
    complied with HAVA, it should go away, i.e. the EAC. And at the
    time we were discussing ``How? With eight staff members, what
    were they for?'' The concern was that in a few years there may
    be twice or three times as many. And so we passed it. As
    Congressman Rokita said, it passed pretty substantially, just
    less than a handful against.
        And then 2 years later we passed another resolution in 2007
    where we mentioned this again. And in 2008, we passed another
    resolution entitled ``Maintenance of Effort,'' but it had in
    the resolution our concern about the expanding role in programs
    and why it should continue not to be reauthorized.
        In 2009, we passed another resolution, and it was about
    payments and grants, because it appeared to us what was being
    done was not helping the States, but it was just creating more
    burdens for the States, and States particularly that have small
    staffs.
        So then it continued. And that came to a point now where,
    as some of the States--many of the States were reminded in the
    last 3, 4, 5 months that there was payments money left that
    they hadn't taken yet. But what has been done is that in order
    to get that money, the States have to agree that it is grant
    money. Ninety-nine percent of the funding for the States has
    been payments money, but the director is called grants
    director. After our resolution it was changed to director of
    grants and payments. Now it is back to just grants. Why?
    Because it falls under OMB; there are more strings attached;
    there is more taking away from the States.
        And so the bottom line--and there has been a continuing
    attempt to have more programs and power, more authority, and we
    don't like that.
        In 2010, we did it again, and we just said, enough is
    enough. We have done this now five times as an association and
    feel very strong about it, and I applaud you for the
    legislation.
        I might just say, Congressman Rokita came back when I
    thanked you for coming in. I just want to say that he is a
    friend and a former colleague, and I am proud, and I know a lot
    of the rest of us are, to be able to call him a Congressman and
    address him that way. We in New Hampshire have a reverence for
    Indiana, because if it wasn't for Indiana, we wouldn't have the
    first-in-the-Nation primary.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you so much, Secretary Gardner, for your
    testimony and for being here today.
        [The statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.019

        Mr. Harper. I now ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record the letters and NASS resolutions mentioned by Secretary
    Gardner in his testimony. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.031

        Mr. Harper. I will now recognize Secretary Hosemann for
    your testimony for 5 minutes, and welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF DELBERT HOSEMANN

        Mr. Hosemann. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman Harper.
    Good to see you. You are missed at home. Apparently the adage
    of the State of New Hampshire, Don't Tread on Me, still applies
    to Bill.
        In light of the budget issues and the international
    conflicts and national debt ceilings that we have got here that
    you all are all facing and the country is facing, election
    issues seem to be less important. However, as everyone who
    charts this country's path comes through the electoral process,
    we believe it is very important what you are doing today.
        I have given you my comments in writing, and I will just
    summarize those quickly. Obviously, under HAVA we have had an
    explosion of scrutiny of increased types of voting systems. But
    the key to HAVA, of course, was to give Federal funding to
    elections, to develop standards in election administration, and
    the systematic collection of data. That is what we were about
    when you started this.
        In this environment the EAC was created. It placed--this
    was the genesis, and Congress in its wisdom in 2002 gave it
    only a 3-year life. It was not appointed perpetually.
        My colleagues at NASS, as Congressman Rokita has already
    pointed out, have voted time and again to abolish the EAC.
    Those votes were, as he mentioned, bipartisan and, in fact, 22
    to 3 with 3 abstentions the last time it came up. Frankly, Mr.
    Chairman, this is a time which has come and a time now that is
    overdue.
        As a threshold matter I would want explain to the committee
    that we could not have implemented the Federal standards
    without the assistance of some $35 million to the State of
    Mississippi. Those were the HAVA grants, and we hope that we
    have used them, and we believe we have used them, in accordance
    with HAVA's mandates. However, EAC's role, as I agree with the
    majority of my NASS colleagues, EAC has become redundant as we
    move forward in the enforcement of HAVA. Many of their
    functions or all their functions can now be utilized by other
    organizations. And I have read the statutory language that you
    have drafted.
        There is nothing in the administrative functions of EAC
    which cannot be performed by another entity. The funding, the
    standards, the data collection are all things that can be done
    from others. My colleagues here from Florida and New Hampshire
    are here with me today. We share this information that is
    gathered under HAVA, and it is very helpful in creating
    solutions to the electoral process.
        I am not opposed to reporting for the reasons mentioned.
    EAC could be more efficient, and I have outlined those in my
    comments. The secretary of state of Mississippi has no
    statutory authority to require counties to provide the
    requested data of the EAC, although we get the initial contacts
    for each of them.
        The lack of information that is reported from the counties,
    it is very hard to prepare this 58-page document and get it
    back on time. Standardization of the reporting data is very
    important as a step going forward, although we don't believe
    that the EAC is the one to do that. We believe FVAP and DOJ,
    the Department of Justice, can both do this as well as the FEC.
        I read with some interest the involvement in military and
    overseas voting. Of five secretaries of state that went to
    Afghanistan and Iraq to promote votes for the Presidential
    election, three of them are sitting here today. We got really
    good information. We learned a great deal of respect for the
    members of our military and how the voting was going to be
    conducted. I know firsthand what secure Internet-based access
    is.
        However, the EAC has come in with two grants to research
    technology for injured members of the military and also create
    guidelines for the design of remote electronic voting systems.
    Those could be handled by FVAP or by the FEC.
        One area of standardization I mentioned in here in regards
    to reporting requirements. They have changed over the years,
    and we have had reports--the ones where we follow the prior
    year's reports, we have had those rejected and had to refile
    them. Under the EAC guidelines, they have moved around.
        I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that from my experience, in
    all due respect to Congressman Hoyer's statements before, this
    issue is not about the continuing of enforcement of HAVA. We
    all support that. The secretaries of state have repeatedly
    supported that.
        We are the ones that train the elections officials at the
    local level, as you well know. We educate election
    commissioners, and we maintain the systems, and we assure
    disability access, and educate the voters. All of the things
    that were required in HAVA when we started are done by the
    secretaries of state in the local reporting agencies. It is not
    about HAVA here; it is about the fact that the EAC's
    responsibilities can be better utilized in other locations, and
    the government can function better.
        All of the issues that I have raised today we raise on
    behalf of all of the secretaries of state, although I do not
    mention--I am not speaking for NASS today.
        I do think it is critically important that we continue the
    three functions of HAVA that I have mentioned to you, the data
    collection, the standardization, and hopefully the funding. All
    of those, though, can be better served by another agency, and
    this one has become redundant and expensive.
        Thank you for allowing me to come today.
        [The statement of Mr. Hosemann follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.035

        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Secretary Hosemann. Appreciate your
    being here and your friendship and your dedication to our great
    State of Mississippi.
        I now recognize Secretary Browning for 5 minutes. You may
    proceed.

                       STATEMENT OF KURT BROWNING

        Mr. Browning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee, for the opportunity to be here today to provide
    testimony for H.R. 672. Today I speak in support of this
    legislation, and, as you know, elections administration has
    always been a responsibility of the States. With the passage of
    the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, I believe the
    Federal Government took its first major step into their
    involvement in the conduct of elections. Certainly after the
    2000 general election that has been frequently mentioned today,
    Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that I
    believe went even further into the administration of elections,
    and under that act created the Elections Assistance Commission
    and provided much-needed funding to the States for modernizing
    their voter registration systems as well as their voting
    systems. And we continue to be appreciative certainly of that
    assistance.
        The EAC was also tasked with administering, obviously, the
    number of grants to study various elections-related issues. The
    creation of the Election Assistance Commission was probably a
    good idea at the time, because it did provide a means of
    administering the requirements payments for the State, as well
    as providing some much-needed uniformity that was pretty much
    nonexistent among the States. It also had a limited life span.
        It continues to operate today as a Federal agency that has
    grown both in staffing and in its budget. It appears to me to
    be an overlap of responsibilities between the EAC and other
    Federal agencies. As Secretary Hosemann has mentioned, some of
    the military initiatives that the EAC has involved themselves
    with is something that to me only makes sense that the Federal
    voting assistance program would be the logical home for some of
    those initiatives.
        My experience with the EAC has been mixed at best. In my
    opinion, the EAC has outlived its usefulness. In 2007, I
    appeared before the EAC seeking guidance from the Commission
    regarding the use of Florida HAVA dollars that we still had on
    account for the purchase of voting systems when we were moving
    from touch-screen to optical-scan voting systems. After a great
    deal of testimony and questions, they, the Commission, were
    unable to provide any definitive answer to me for a very timely
    topic and in need of a very timely answer since my legislature
    was in session. It was only after discussion with the
    Commission's general counsel that an answer was provided, and
    then and only then was it a tentative answer.
        A common criticism is the EAC's voting system
    certification, and that it has taken extended amounts of time
    to certify systems. It wasn't until recently that they
    certified their first system after having been in existence for
    as long as they have.
        The other thing that is a concern is the continually
    changing voting system standards. No sooner is a set of
    standards adopted by the EAC before they are preparing a new
    round of standards. This constant state of flux has cost the
    voting system's manufacturers millions of dollars, and in turn
    those costs are passed on to local and State governments. For
    that reason Florida chose not to require Federal voting system
    certification, but instead to rely on our own rigorous voting
    system certification program. In my opinion, we can certify a
    system faster and more accurately in Florida than the EAC.
        As has been stated a number of times today, the National
    Association of Secretaries of State has, in fact, adopted a
    resolution in 2005 and again in 2010 calling on Congress not to
    reauthorize funding or--reauthorize the EAC or its funding, and
    I supported that resolution. I do, however, believe that they
    should have gone further by providing specific suggestions to
    you, the Congress, as to the disposition of the functions of
    the EAC.
        The legislation today calls for the termination of EAC and
    reassignment of most of its responsibilities to the Federal
    Election Commission. I believe a more philosophical question
    that I believe needs to be asked and answered in light of this
    legislation is does the Federal Government need to continue
    administering a program intended to fix problems that are now
    10 years old and have essentially been resolved? If the Federal
    Government is going to continue to be involved with voting
    system certification issues, I would recommend and certainly
    suggest that this be transferred to the Federal Election
    Commission and not the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology as currently proposed.
        Certainly with the passage of this legislation, the
    Standards Board and the Advisory Board cease to exist. I
    believe there needs to be some formalized process that State
    stakeholders have in providing input to the body that is going
    to determine these voting system standards as well as other
    things would impact the administration of elections at the
    State level.
        Certainly I am not an ardent supporter of Federal
    involvement in election administration, but I do believe that
    the issues that we are talking about today that are currently
    assigned to the Elections Assistance Commission could and
    should be assigned or reassigned to the Federal Election
    Commission, and I believe that it would be the best place to do
    it because of their continued relationship with the elections
    community.
        I would be more than happy to answer any appropriate
    questions at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Secretary Browning, for being here.
        [The statement of Mr. Browning follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.039

        Mr. Harper. And I now recognize Mrs. LaVine for 5 minutes.
    Thank you. You may proceed.

                        STATEMENT OF JILL LAVINE

        Ms. LaVine. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for this
    opportunity to speak here at this committee and to give you the
    viewpoint of the local election official if the EAC was
    terminated.
        In 2002, when the Help America Vote Act was being debated
    here in Washington, it was the topic of every election
    official. And I have to admit, I was on the concerned side. It
    was perceived that the Federal Government wanted control how
    the States and local elections conducted their elections. I
    changed my mind, however, when I saw what the EAC really did,
    that they were an Election Assistance Commission.
        In 2005, Sacramento County rolled out our new voter assist
    terminals for voters with disabilities. This was the largest
    rollout in any State at that time. The EAC was there to help
    and observe, and their experience was very helpful. I have been
    able to participate in several of the EAC projects, and in
    preparing the Election Management Guidelines and the Quick
    Start Guide. The Commission would gather together a group of
    election officials. We would get together and discuss the
    topic. We were not told what to do or what we were supposed to
    say, but rather how did we make this work, and what were our
    differences, and what could we suggest to improve the process.
        Since we represented different States, and worked under
    different laws, and used different voting systems, the finished
    products will help everyone.
        The Election Management Guidelines should be in every
    election office. I use them when I write procedures, when
    looking for ways to save money, and when writing RFPs for new
    equipment. However, election laws change, and technology
    changes, and these guidelines need to be updated, and the new
    elections trends need to be vetted with election officials
    having those experiences.
        There are two topics now that should be added: One,
    requiring identification to vote; and another would be on-line
    voter registration. I believe the EAC is the best organization
    to continue these projects. On the EAC Web site, it is one the
    best and most helpful clearinghouse spots for information for
    election officials from all States. I cochair the legislation
    committee in California, and as I prepare analysis of the bills
    to determine cost and impacts, I can do research on the EAC Web
    site and be able to make appropriate suggestions for
    amendments. I even used the Web site when I was asked by my
    county to prepare a contingency plan for the H1N1, or swine
    flu.
        As cochair of the legislation committee, I put on a yearly
    workshop to discuss all the laws that had been passed the
    previous year and the impact on the local officials. The EAC
    has been very supportive of this workshop and, when available,
    will speak at this meeting to update what is happening on the
    Federal level. It is that interaction to show their support and
    we build trust together.
        The authors of H.R. 672 recommend the termination of the
    EAC because they feel the job is done. HAVA has recommended--or
    one of the HAVA's requirements is that they have--every State
    have a statewide voter registration database. California does
    not, and right now the expected implementation date is 2015.
        Another requirement of HAVA is to improve voting systems.
    At this time Los Angeles County, the largest county, I think,
    in the Nation, is looking for a voting system. They are using
    their homegrown Inkavote system because there is not a system
    that will accommodate their needs. And California's passage of
    the Top Two Primary has increased their burden, and they will
    not be able to accommodate the number of candidates and
    contests for 2012.
        I bought our optical scan system in 2004, and soon it will
    be at the end of its lifecycle. Many counties are in the same
    position. HAVA's requirement to improve voting systems will
    always be an ongoing job.
        One fast food company used the saying, you don't notice
    clean until it is not there. Well, the same could be said for
    elections. No one pays any attention to an election official
    until something goes wrong. That is what happened in 2000.
    Election officials now are preparing for the Presidential 2012
    elections. Now is not the time to terminate the EAC.
        While the research projects first included in HAVA are
    complete, elections change, people change, voters change,
    technology changes, and the EAC also needs to be changed, but
    not terminated. Like all election offices facing budget cuts,
    we must look for new efficiencies. HAVA now requires three
    advisory boards for the EAC. I would suggest reviewing the need
    for all these members. I would recommend staffing all four
    Commissioners. There is no cost savings when decisions cannot
    be made to get the work done.
        In conclusion, I would recommend a change, not a
    termination, of the EAC. Election officials rely on the
    guidance and the resources that the Election Assistance
    Commission provides.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you Ms. LaVine. Appreciate your
    attendance today.
        [The statement of Ms. LaVine follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.043

        Mr. Harper. I now recognize Mr. Fortier for his testimony.
    You are recognized, sir. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN FORTIER

        Mr. Fortier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    members of the subcommittee, for having me here today. I
    appreciate testifying on this subject, and I guess I have
    something of a middle view.
        I sympathize very much with the aim of the bill. There are
    a lot of reasons to think that we have a time of fiscal crisis,
    we should look at every line in the budget; that the EAC has a
    number of missions that it has completed and it is not going to
    be performing in the future; and finally, the questions about
    the EAC's management, and how much it spends on management, and
    how it allocates its resources. All of those point in the
    direction of doing something significant with the EAC.
        I do have some, a couple of reservations that caused me not
    to go down the road of absolutely calling for the termination
    of the EAC. One is that, I think, the one function of the EAC
    that is partially preserved by the bill, partially preserved in
    the FEC with reports on UOCAVA and reports on NVRAs, the
    research function; the research function, the ability to
    collect and standardize data, which can be very different from
    State to State. Not only the reporting of the data is uneven,
    but different things are called different things in different
    States. So it is very difficult to find a sort of common data
    across States, and the EAC performs a valuable function in that
    area.
        I guess I want to take you back to the time when Mr. Hoyer
    was sitting here at this table, was sitting where you are
    sitting, and we had the 2000 elections crisis, and it really
    was a time when Washington had to figure out how elections
    worked. There were secretaries of state, local elections
    officials well versed in these issues, but in many ways
    Washington wasn't, scholars weren't versed in these things. And
    we spent a couple of years in this committee and various
    private commissions around the country trying to get a real
    handle on how the whole system works. We had worked on it
    episodically here and there, but having a place that can look
    at the elections system as a whole and collect data, I think,
    is significant and important.
        Two things I would highlight. One is that, yes, you
    preserve some of the research functions. But I do think that
    the Elections Administration Survey, which really is part of a
    larger survey that includes UOCAVA and NVRA, is valuable. The
    work that I have done on early and absentee voting, information
    about provisional ballots, about types of voting machines, just
    getting a sense of the landscape of where we are across this
    very, varied country, is something I think is worth preserving.
        I do think a more robust research component in general than
    has been proposed by the bill would be worthwhile. Thinking
    about a State of Voting in America report coming out regularly
    that would be a Federal and independent voice of what was going
    on in the country would help policymakers here in Washington,
    policymakers in the States, and elections scholars as well.
        The other concern I have is that elections administration
    issues might get lost. The FEC, of course, did have a
    responsibility for these matters before 2000. And we did come
    to the 2000 elections crisis and realize we didn't know enough
    about it here in Washington. And I worry that all of the
    resources of Washington knowing about elections will drain away
    if we don't treat this core responsibility of being able to
    describe the elections system well seriously.
        The committee here may find itself not as interested in
    these issues if there is not an EAC. Scholars may not write as
    many reports. There already is some sense that foundations and
    others are pulling away from this area. So I think it is
    important to keep these issues in the forefront.
        And I suggest a leaner, meaner EAC focused much more on
    research issues and making sure that we retain some of these
    core components. That might be a significantly smaller EAC than
    it is today, but certainly an important function. Or if you do
    need to move it to another place, to the FEC, I think the
    challenge here is to make sure that that part of the FEC has a
    voice. The FEC is a busy place, and Commissioners are concerned
    with other things, and getting Commissioners' time and getting
    a prominence to those issues, I think, is a challenge.
        So I am supportive of the strong look at the FEC, the need
    to streamline, cut down many of the functions, but I do think
    we need to look much more significantly about preserving a
    strong research function and finding a place, whether it is a
    smaller independent agency or as a part of the FEC, to make
    sure that those issues are not lost in other issues.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Fortier, we thank you for your testimony.
        [The statement of Mr. Fortier follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.051

        Mr. Harper. And we now have time for committee members to
    ask questions of the witnesses. Each member is allotted 5
    minutes to question the witnesses, and, of course, we have the
    same time clock to look at, and I'll begin by recognizing
    myself for 5 minutes.
        And I certainly want to thank each of you for taking the
    time that you have out of a very busy schedule to be here and
    to give us some insight into this legislation on what we should
    do.
        And, of course, Mr. Fortier, recognizing some of the things
    that you said about research and things of that nature, one of
    the responsibilities for EAC was that they were to have--and
    this was assigned under HAVA--they were supposed to do a study
    on the use of Social Security numbers in voter registration,
    and I believe that it was due in 2005. And as of April 2011, we
    don't have it, even though there have been inquiries. And their
    response, EAC's response, was that it was the responsibility of
    the Social Security Administration, which they have responded
    back, no, under HAVA it is your responsibility. So we have had
    some disappointment in that response.
        I don't know if you were in the room when I did my opening,
    but we asked for simple questions to be responded to by April
    6th. How hard is that?
        And so there is a high level of frustration here as we look
    at what is going on. And EAC, having responsibility for
    fairness in elections, has two of their Commissioners commit
    political discrimination. That gets the government sued and
    results in a hefty settlement being paid by the taxpayers
    ultimately.
        So there are many things here that we are dealing with. But
    as it comes to research, which is certainly an important
    aspect, who else besides EAC can handle the research
    responsibilities that are already in the system?
        Mr. Fortier. Well, I do think it is important that there be
    a Federal role, a core Federal role. It is true that there--
    since our problems in 2000 have been much more interesting to
    the academic community, certainly the secretaries of state,
    their organizations, and local elections officials, the
    elections centers do lots of good work in that area. But what
    is difficult is, and what I think needed is, an organization
    that can go to States and localities and say, look, we need
    relatively common information, and it is a difficult challenge
    because of the differences out there.
        I have written a book about absentee and early voting, and
    I know that each State calls it something different. And some
    States don't report at the State level on this. And I found
    myself having to go to town-level data. So just to know what is
    happening in the States for you, for Federal policymakers, for
    us requires some sort of core data. Yes, others can do
    additional research, but I do think that that is important to
    preserve.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Fortier.
        Secretary Gardner, if I may, can you explain the difference
    between a payment and a grant under HAVA and how the EAC's use
    of terms interchangeably affects your State or other States?
        Mr. Gardner. Well, a payment: 99-plus percent of the money
    that has been given to the States have been payments. To comply
    with the provisions of HAVA, make sure that all disabled voters
    have a way to participate that protects them, and create the
    statewide database. A grant was for colleges, for instance,
    that want to have a program for students that might want to
    work in a polling place. It amounts to a small amount of money;
    compared to almost 3 billion for payments, maybe 30 million for
    grants. But grants tie the States up. Grants have a lot more
    strings attached, and that really got to the fundamentals of--
    is this just an attempt to prolong the existence by bringing
    the States in tighter in a way that doesn't give back? That is
    why we made a big point of it.
        It is laughable that there was a grants director and not a
    payments director, because the focus is towards the OMB and
    rules and rulemaking. That is what we at the State level are
    really concerned about. That is what your attempt--that is why
    I applaud you for that.
        This is--this is a waste of money. From all of my
    experience: We had the closest U.S. Senate race in history
    decided by two votes in 1974. The U.S. Senate decided--the
    Rules Committee--that they would do a recount themselves. Just
    like your counterpart, you--if you decided someday you wanted
    to do a recount because you are the final judge of the
    qualification election of your own members.
        We shipped all the ballots to Washington. They remained
    down here for about 20 years. About a decade ago someone called
    me and said, ``What are all these boxes doing in one of the
    closets in one of these buildings from New Hampshire, what are
    they doing here?'' They were the recount ballots, and the
    Senate spent 6 months and couldn't do it.
        And this is not--I wasn't expecting your question, but here
    is an example. This is one of these Quick Starts, best
    practice. This is about recounts. This is laughable what is in
    here. It doesn't help at all. I have done a lot of recounts in
    my day, and my testimony will tell you that. If the U.S. Senate
    got this when they were deciding to look at recounts, whoever
    did this, they would ask a lot of questions. This is just one
    example of spending money on this and other things that are
    part of this.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Secretary Gardner. I appreciate that
    very much.
        I am now going to recognize the ranking member Mr. Gonzalez
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
    ask, Mr. Gardner, are you for repeal of the Help America Vote
    Act.
        Mr. Gardner. No.
        Mr. Gonzalez. You would not.
        Mr. Gardner. I am not for repeal of the act. I am for
    repeal of the EAC.
        Mr. Gonzalez. I understand that.
        And, Mr. Hosemann, are you for repeal of the Help America
    Vote Act?
        Mr. Hosemann. No.
        Mr. Gonzalez. And, Mr. Browning, same question.
        Mr. Browning. No, sir.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Because you recognize that its goals and its
    purpose are quite valid; is that correct, Mr. Gardner?
        Mr. Gardner. Say that again, please.
        Mr. Gonzalez. The act itself, you don't want it repealed
    because it is a valid piece of legislation addressing very real
    issues that existed at the time of its enactment that are still
    present today in our elections system. It is a relevant piece
    of legislation, that is all I am saying. And I am assuming all
    three of you said you would not want to repeal it because you
    think it is a legitimate piece of legislation that is relevant
    today. That was just an assumption. And I only have 5 minutes
    because I want to get some other questions.
        I listen to your testimony, and it is almost as if you may
    be questioning the validity and the purpose of the act itself.
    So let us get that off the table. What you are really
    complaining about is the entity, the Election Assistance
    Commission as the entity that is charged, in essence, with
    carrying forth the goals of the Help America Vote Act.
        And I will follow that. My colleagues believe that it is
    inefficient, it costs too much, but if you read the letters
    that we have received from the other agencies that would
    subsume those duties, they are all telling you, We are
    understaffed. One, NIST has a conflict of interest; secondly,
    doesn't have the resources and would be asking for more monies.
    The FEC is telling you, We are ill equipped; we can't do it
    unless you plus up. So I don't know where the savings are going
    to come. So, I don't even think that is going to be relevant in
    this particular discussion. We are not seeking to pass this
    particular bill to really save any money, because no one is
    going to point at these other agencies.
        Now, let me ask you, do you really want to work with DOJ,
    NIST and the FEC as opposed to one entity that is charged with
    the responsibility of what is going to help you with the Help
    America Vote Act? Are you telling me you would rather be
    working with three, four, five different Federal agencies than
    one?
        Mr. Gardner. Your premise is you are saying it helps us. I
    don't believe it helps us. You said that the act helps us, and
    I am saying to you that I don't believe that it does help us.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Then why aren't you for repealing it? No, I
    mean, I think what we are really getting into is all sorts of
    philosophy and such, which is good. But I would--let me ask the
    three secretaries of state. Do all your local election
    officials share your opinions as expressed today in your
    testimony? Mr. Gardner.
        Mr. Gardner. Yes, I can say that--and I work very closely
    with our elections officials. We have over 6,000 that
    participate just on election night itself. We have workshops
    all year. When I have shown them some of these or they have
    seen them, there was no enthusiasm whatsoever.
        Mr. Gonzalez. All right. I'm saying that----
        Mr. Gardner. The whole thing about best practices----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Total waste of time? Nothing; they have not
    benefited at all by what the Election Assistance Commission has
    attempted to do nationwide? They would all agree with you?
        Let me ask you, Mr. Hosemann, do all of your local elected
    officials agree with your assessment in your testimony?
        Mr. Hosemann. They do.
        Mr. Gonzalez. So you can speak for each and every one of
    them?
        Mr. Hosemann. Well, I didn't speak with each and every one
    of them about here, but we do meet with election Commissioners.
    We train all of them. We have 400 of them. I visit with them on
    a regular basis, sometimes monthly, and oftentimes----
        Mr. Gonzalez. And they are all for doing away with EAC?
        Mr. Hosemann. They are frustrated with EAC.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No. They are all wanting to do away----
        Mr. Hosemann. The ones I have spoken with are in favor of
    doing away with EAC.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Well, what I am saying, ``all.'' Because I
    think you are going to find individuals in your own states--I
    am just assuming this; maybe I will hear from them, hopefully I
    would, because we do have some local officials that are willing
    to testify and correspond with us.
        Mr. Browning, same question. Do all of your local elected
    officials agree with your testimony today?
        Mr. Browning. The way your question is phrased, no.
        Mr. Gonzalez. And the reason for that?
        Mr. Browning. Well, I haven't polled all my local elections
    supervisors, but the ones that I have talked to, and I talk to
    my supervisors of elections on a regular basis, they have
    sensed or expressed to me a sense of frustration with the EAC.
    Certainly we are appreciative of funding that the Federal
    Government, through the EAC, has provided for the modernization
    of voter registration and voting systems, but, you know, when
    you have election administration being done or--I won't even
    say--to a degree micromanaged, at least they are attempting to
    micromanage elections through the EAC, it doesn't work. The
    folks that best know how to administer elections are those
    locally, and I think that they see the EAC as an intrusion.
        Mr. Gonzalez. I am going to yield back if you'll give me
    one second, sir. First I want to apologize to our witnesses and
    my colleagues. I am supposed to be chairing a meeting right
    now, and so I am 20 minutes late, and this group gets very
    restless, so I will apologize. But thank you for your
    testimony.
        I think if we are realistic about what we are trying to do
    and to assist you, it is not necessary to do away. All we have
    to do is improve on what has proved beneficial. That is why I
    asked that question. I don't believe that all the election
    officials agree with your assessment, because, to be honest
    with you, we have someone present today that believes it has
    been beneficial. That is a local election official.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say for
    the record and to the witnesses, having supervised elections,
    having run elections in the State of Indiana for 8 years, I
    don't know--this is to Mr. Gonzalez--I don't know a group of
    election officials that agree on everything 100 percent of the
    time. In that sense they are no more than a simple microcosm of
    this great country.
        I also would say the fact that bureaucrats might write in
    and tell us that they are overworked and understaffed has
    little weight with me, and that comes from a guy who used to
    run a bureaucracy. I used to run it on 1987 dollars unadjusted
    for inflation. We can all do more work around here, Mr.
    Chairman.
        To my friend Mr. Fortier--I guess we haven't met, so I
    shouldn't say ``friend'' so flippantly. You were called in, I
    would suggest, as a friendly witness. And I appreciate your
    concentration on research. Are you aware that the EAC contracts
    out most of its research, or at least does, yes or no?
        Mr. Fortier. Yes.
        Mr. Rokita. Okay. Are you aware that it contracts it out to
    organizations that aren't necessarily unbiased, or do you not
    have an opinion? Yes or no, no opinion.
        Mr. Fortier. There is a lot of research, I suppose----
        Mr. Rokita. Are you aware that I was part of a group as
    secretary of state that worked with contractors to the EAC on
    issues of voter intimidation and photo ID, yes or no?
        Mr. Fortier. Yes.
        Mr. Rokita. You are aware that I was part of that.
        Are you aware that that contractor was discredited and had
    to leave its liberal, biased university, a specific law school,
    because of an inspector general's report that came out
    indicating that the EAC had contracted biased people, biased
    organizations, and gave biased results back?
        Mr. Fortier. I am not aware of that.
        Mr. Rokita. Okay. Now that you are aware of that, would you
    rely on the EAC for its research, yes or no?
        Mr. Fortier. I have a hard time answering yes or no, but
    what I would say is this: That, yes, the EAC itself I don't
    expect to do its research in house. I--the core functions----
        Mr. Rokita. Do you have a problem----
        Mr. Fortier. Data collection, I think, is the most
    important feature.
        Mr. Rokita. Do you have a problem with professional
    government organizations like the GAO performing the election
    research?
        Mr. Fortier. Not necessarily, but I think it would be
    potentially too diffuse. It wouldn't have the focus of an
    organization that had a core competency----
        Mr. Rokita. Do you think----
        Mr. Fortier [continuing]. Having five or six, seven
    people----
        Mr. Rokita. Core competency. But you just understood that
    they contract out their research.
        Mr. Fortier. They contract out data collection, but having
    people in house who can analyze----
        Mr. Rokita. No, no, no. I was part of a group that didn't
    just contract out data collection, they made conclusions.
        To my secretary of state friends, starting with Mr.
    Hosemann, is there anything in the Mississippi Constitution
    that allows the Federal Government to be involved in the
    election process?
        Mr. Hosemann. No.
        Mr. Rokita. Okay. Do you see anything in the U.S.
    Constitution that allows for the Election Assistance Commission
    to do what it does?
        Mr. Hosemann. No, I do not. And I would tell you that I
    think clearly we believe that the collection of data is
    important, and we believe that the collection of data by
    impartial individuals is important to the States. We share that
    data. Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, all of us share that data.
        Also the indication that there would not be a spotlight on
    the election system with the removal of the EAC is not shared
    by me. We get the spotlight thrown on the secretary of state's
    office every time there is an election, and plenty of reporters
    and people looking at it.
        So it is not about the data collection. I think it can be
    better done in another location. It is not about the fact that
    this will somehow go away and people won't look at the election
    system anymore. I can assure you they will look at it in
    Mississippi. I can't testify for the other States, but I feel
    they will as well.
        Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Hosemann.
        And, Secretary Browning, thank you for being here as well.
    Do you know Supervisor Gill of Citrus County, Florida?
        Mr. Browning. Yes, very well.
        Mr. Rokita. She testified here last year before I got to
    Congress and said some nice things about the EAC at a hearing
    that was a look back at the 2010 election. And this comes from
    my friend Congressman Nugent, who is of that county. He had a
    conversation with her today, and I want to get this on the
    record and have you respond. This is her quote from, I believe,
    this morning: The more I learned about it, being the EAC, the
    more I was for eliminating the organization.
        So she has changed her view in an opposite direction from
    how Ms. LaVine's testimony recorded her view. Any reaction to
    that?
        Mr. Browning. Yes. As a matter of fact, I had a
    conversation with Supervisor Gill just last evening, and she
    had indicated to me that the more she found out, the more she
    realized that the EAC was more of a burden than it was a help.
    She expressed that to me last night.
        Mr. Rokita. Secretaries, I thank all the witnesses. Sorry I
    didn't get to each of you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you being
    here. What we want is we want to have efficient and fair
    elections in this country where everyone who is legally able to
    vote can vote, and those that shouldn't don't. And I know that
    is the goal of everybody in this room, but when we look at this
    and the function and the history of EAC, this is why we are
    here today.
        We are not attacking HAVA. In fact, if we are saying that
    we support that bill, well, within that bill was a provision
    that the EAC was only authorized through 2005. I think when you
    look at the history of your organization, of NASS, and what
    they have done, you have recognized that and looked at that.
    And so when we see the inability to do the job, that is an
    issue.
        One last thing that I will note that Mr. Gonzalez brought
    up of essential functions. Right now the EAC has, I believe, 50
    employees. Only six of those would be handling what we would
    deem to be essential. So there is a significant cost savings of
    what we would be talking about in this reassignment.
        But we do look forward to hearing from you. If you have
    other thoughts, suggestions, you know, we definitely want to
    hear from you. We appreciate each of you, your service and
    dedication to the process.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7345A.078

        Mr. Fortier did no submit responses to the Committee prior
    to the printing of this transcript.