[Senate Hearing 116-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-74
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-452 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
FIRST SESSION
ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Chairman
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED CRUZ, Texas TOM UDALL, New Mexico
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Fitzhugh Elder IV, Staff Director
Lindsey Kerr, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Pages
Opening Statements of:
Hon. Roy Blunt, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 1
Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota... 2
Christy McCormick, Chairwoman, U.S. Election Assistance
Commission; Thomas Hicks, Commissioner, U.S. Election
Assistance Commission; Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S.
Election Assistance Commission; and Benjamin Hovland,
Commissioner/Vice Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission... 3
Prepared Statements of:
Christy McCormick, Chairwoman, U.S. Election Assistance
Commission; Thomas Hicks, Commissioner, U.S. Election
Assistance Commission; Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S.
Election Assistance Commission; and Benjamin Hovland,
Commissioner/Vice Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission... 23
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Hon. Roy Blunt, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 133
Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota... 141
Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico...... 149
Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine.. 150
Hon. Cortez Masto, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada....... 152
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019
United States Senate,
Committee on Rules and Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in
Room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Blunt, Fischer, Klobuchar, Durbin, Udall,
and King.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROY BLUNT, CHAIRMAN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Chairman Blunt. The Committee on Rules and Administration
will come to order. Glad to welcome today our witnesses.
This is an agency that is responsible for promulgating
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, certifying election
systems, and assisting state and local election officials with
information they need to run America's elections. The EAC can
play an important role in assisting state and local election
officials efforts to provide an accessible and secure election
process. I think we all understand that the secure part and the
reliable part of that election process is increasingly more
important.
As we look back at the 2016 elections and then the 2018
elections, we were all reminded of how important it is that
people believe that what happened at the voting place on
election day is what really happened. You and I, and our
Committee, working with the state and local election officials
can have a big impact on that. A lot of the EAC's
responsibility up until now has been largely without the kind
of connections that I would hope to see more of, the money
distributed under the Help America Vote Act was largely
distributed in a per capita basis, without much indication as
to what should happen with it, but this Commission as it was
constituted, did distribute $380 million in grant money to the
states that was included in the Fiscal Year 2018 spending bill.
The agency's efforts have been important there and in trying to
become that interface between the Federal Government, and state
and local officials, as we try to be sure that we create cyber
confidence, that we create cybersecurity, that we are sure that
everybody that needs to talk to everybody is able to do that,
and we have thought about that in advance.
This is the first time in nearly 10 years we have a full
slate of commissioners. I think a great obligation on our
Committee but also on the Commission itself is to function with
renewed vigor. Four EAC Commissioners are in place today. Their
job is to, again, update the progress to give us what is
happening with the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, the
agency's work, what are you doing to ensure that election
officials around the country have the information they need,
and that we are doing all we can to help them prepare for the
2020 elections. I think this role can be important.
I hope that the agency can live up to its potential, and if
it cannot live up to its potential as it is currently
constituted, that is something else that we should think about.
But again, thanks to all the Commissioners for being here with
us today. The new Chairman, Christy McCormick, the Vice
Chairman Benjamin Hovland, no stranger to this Committee,
Commissioner Don Palmer, and former Chairman and Commissioner
Thomas Hicks are all here with us today. Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, welcome to all of you, especially welcome back the Vice
Chair. I think the last time I saw you here, there was some
child involved in your confirmation hearing. For the first time
as the chairman noted, since 2009, we have all four
commissioners serving, which we are proud that we were able to
get that done, so thank you.
Operating at full capacity means that the EAC must have
effective management, and I know that each of you and the staff
at the Commission are working closely with states and other
Federal agencies to prepare for the upcoming elections.
It is vital that we work together on a bipartisan basis
because election security is our country's security, and it
does not matter if you are democrat or republican, you want to
make sure that our elections are free of foreign influence.
Recent news that Russian hackers successfully accessed election
systems in two Florida counties. We just saw something on that
this week where the Florida officials, the Governor and others,
have been briefed by the FBI. It shows us that the interference
we saw in 2016 and the ongoing threats to our elections are
real and require a united front.
These threats point to why the work of the EAC, the only
Federal agency whose sole mission is to improve elections, is
so important. Russia invaded our democracy. They did not use
bombs, jets, or tanks. Instead, they planned a mission to
undermine our foundation. Special counsel Mueller concluded
that Russian interference in our democracy was in ``sweeping
and systemic fashion.'' Russia conducted sophisticated
influence operations noted in the Mueller report, hacked
political committees and campaigns, targeted election
administrators, and even private technology firms responsible
for manufacturing and administering election systems.
In Illinois, the names, addresses, birth dates, and partial
Social Security numbers of hundreds of thousands of registered
voters were exposed. Intelligence officials from the Trump
Administration continue to warn that our elections are a
continued target for our adversaries. So, we have a common set
of facts about what happened, and we know there is a continued
threat. What we need to do now is to figure out how we are
going to address it with a common purpose and prepare for the
next election.
As we all know, right now 40 states rely on electronic
voting systems that are at least 10 years old. I don't have to
mention that because of course our adversaries already know it.
12 states have no or partial paper ballot backup, so if
something happened in one county in a closed state or in one
state, an entire Presidential election could be up in the air
and we then would not be able to prove what happened if we have
no backup paper ballots. 16 states have no statewide audit
requirement. These statistics are alarming because experts
agree that paper ballots and audits are the baseline of what we
need to secure our election systems.
Thankfully some states are moving forward, updating in part
because we work to secure the Federal money, in part because
some of the states are acting on their own. All 50 states have
submitted plans for how they plan to spend the grant funding
and the Commission played a critical role in ensuring states
received their funding as quickly as possible. From what I
understand, states have spent about 30 percent of the fund so
far and they are on track to spend the rest before the 2020
elections. The $380 million was a good start but let us
remember that it was 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft
carrier. We were disappointed that the Elections Security Act
did not advance to the floor.
Senator Blunt tried his best to do that, and Senator
Lankford and I as well as the other co-sponsors including
Senator Burr and Senator Warner would really like to see that
bill advance. The next elections are 538 days away, with the
first primary in just 264 days--but who is counting. Every day
we fail to take action to pass election security legislation is
a wasted opportunity to make critical improvements to protect
our democracy. I look forward to hearing from all of you about
what we can do together. Thank you.
Chairman Blunt. Thank you, Senator. Chairman McCormick we
are going to let you--I believe you are going to give opening
remarks for the entire Commission. I will note that your
prepared remarks are in the record, but you can share those
remarks in the next 5 minutes with us however you want to and
then we will go to questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTY MCCORMICK, CHAIRWOMAN, U.S.
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS HICKS,
COMMISSIONER, U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; DONALD
PALMER, COMMISSIONER, U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; AND
BENJAMIN HOVLAND, COMMISSIONER/VICE CHAIR, U.S. ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Ms. McCormick. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Blunt,
Ranking Member Klobuchar, and members of the committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon to
detail the vital work of the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission, better known as the EAC.
I am pleased to appear alongside my fellow commissioners to
discuss the EAC's work to fulfill its mission as prescribed by
the Commission's enabling legislation, the Help America Vote
Act of 2002, or HAVA. While we each took diverse paths in
coming to the EAC, we are in lockstep when it comes to this
message: the Commission is as needed today as it has been at
any other time since it was established, and we are at a
critical crossroads with regards to having sufficient resources
necessary to better support state and local election
administrators and the voters that they serve. During the past
year in particular, the leaders of this committee and other
stakeholders have publicly echoed that same sentiment and
voiced support for the EAC.
We are emboldened by your confidence in our work as well as
your continued support for our mission. Our intent is to
harness your energy and feedback we hear each day from election
officials across the Nation to ensure that the EAC has all of
the resources it needs ahead of 2020. We are committed to
maximizing our impact ahead of the next Federal election and
providing services that not only meet but exceed expectations
of those who are counting on us to do our job. With regard to
doing our job, we have included a copy of the Commission's 2018
annual report with our written testimony. In it are details of
the Commission's robust achievements from last year, work
accomplished by a small but talented and motivated staff who
are firing on all cylinders to fulfill the EAC's mission. They
not only do their own full-time jobs, but they are often called
upon to pitch in whenever and wherever needed across our
various programs, and they have willingly stepped up to the
plate.
The commissioners sincerely thank each member of EAC staff
for their hard work and dedication, and we appear here today in
part to stress the importance of their efforts and the need for
additional resources to secure their sustainability. While 538
days remain until the 2020 Presidential election, the first
Federal--but who is counting--the first Federal Presidential
primary is just 7 months away and election officials across the
Nation are administering state and local elections now.
As you have noted, the EAC is the only Federal agency
solely devoted to supporting those officials in this work and
helping America vote. HAVA established the EAC to serve as the
Nation's foremost clearinghouse in elections; to conduct
original research, such as the election administration and
voting survey that informs ways to improve election
administration; to establish Federal voting system testing
guidelines and operate the Federal Government's voting system
certification program; to administer Federal grant funding to
states; to improve election administration and to help America
vote. These resources give election administrators the tools
they need to carry out secure, accurate, and efficient
elections.
The EAC's work also helps to ensure that all eligible
Americans have the opportunity to vote privately and
independently, to cast a ballot with confidence, and to know
that the vote will be counted securely and accurately. Election
security is a theme that continues to shape the national
conversation about election administration, especially as we
look ahead to 2020. Federal law enforcement and intelligence
officials regularly remind us that the threats election
administrators faced in 2016 and 2018 remain today and are
likely to intensify in the months and years ahead. We take
seriously the fact that voter confidence is enhanced when we
adequately prepare for and respond to challenges such as
election misinformation campaigns, persistent attempts to
breach election systems and voting registration databases, and
other very real threats.
As the agency best positioned to communicate directly with
election officials across the country, the EAC played an early
and leading role in establishing trust and open lines of
communications between state and local leaders, and the Federal
Government entities that work on election security. The EAC
drove the development of the election security working group
that eventually became the sub-sector's Government Coordinating
Council, or GCC, and I currently sit on that Council's
executive board. In addition to the EAC's work with the
Department of Homeland Security to establish the GCC, the
Commission played an integral role in establishing the Sector
Coordinating Council comprised of private election equipment
manufacturers and vendors.
We have taken a multi-faceted approach to helping state and
local election officials strengthen their election security.
This work includes testing and federally certifying voting
systems, providing hands-on security and post-election audit
training across the country, producing security-focused
resources, disseminating security best practices information,
and checklists to state and local election officials, as well
as hosting widely attended forums that feature security experts
as speakers.
I see that my time is up. I can finish this statement, or
we can go straight to questions, whichever you prefer.
Chairman Blunt. Go ahead and take another minute to wrap up
your statement.
Ms. McCormick. Okay. The EAC does not have full time
employees devoted to these new components of providing election
security support. In fact, the EAC's Inspector General
highlighted this staffing issue as a significant management
challenge in 2018.
At this time, existing staff in conjunction with their
other full-time responsibilities, have been tasked with
interacting with the agency's external partners to identify
resources and materials that might be useful for election
official stakeholders. With additional resources, the EAC would
have the opportunity to fund additional election security
activities within its election technology program. There is no
shortage of ambition at the EAC when it comes to supporting
this work but there is a stark shortage of funds for such
activities. This shortfall means the Commission faces tough
programmatic choices each and every day, and we hope you will
consider that as you continue to work on next year's
appropriations bills.
And I will just wrap it up there. There is much more to our
statement, but with the recent establishment of a quorum of
commissioners, the EAC is ready for its next chapter. My fellow
commissioners and I look forward to working with Congress as we
continue our efforts to help America vote. We are happy to
answer any questions you have following today's testimony.
[The prepared Statement of Ms. McCormick was submitted for
the record.]
Chairman Blunt. Well thank you and we do have your
statement in the record. I do not know that we have sat down as
a group since the November 2018 elections. Give me a sense, and
any or all of you can do this, give me a sense of how your
interaction with state and local officials was different in
2018 than it was in 2016, and part of that may be because of
what you know and part of it may be because of what they knew
they should be concerned about that they might not have had
quite that same level of concern in 2018. This is not designed
to be critical of anything you did in 2016 but how would you
see the landscape on both ends of the Commission communication
with state and local officials changing over that 2 year period
of time?
Ms. McCormick. Well we have seen, you know, Federal
partners come together to bolster the elections community, and
communications, I think, have increased greatly between the
state and local elections officials and other Federal partners,
both through the GCC and through our FACA groups. I think also
that this is just on the top of everyone's concerns is to make
sure that the elections are secure and that we are
communicating any threats or concerns and ways that we might
mitigate them going forward.
So, there is just a lot more exchange of communication. We
have a lot more work to do with communication, but it has
greatly improved since 2016. The EAC has always been in
communication with our state and local election officials but
now with the addition of the Department of Homeland Security,
the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
and other intelligence agencies it is, I think, a much more
coordinated effort to address some of the concerns that we have
over threats to our election systems.
Chairman Blunt. Anybody else want to address that?
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Chairman. I think that in 2016, as
the chairwoman stated, we did go through a little bit of a
communications lapse. I think that with 2018, with the EAC's
help, I believe that we achieved a lot more communications
between the states. We have always had communications with the
states themselves, but I think of it as there was a lot more
suspicion in 2016 of the Federal Government and the thought of
its takeover of elections but I think that we were able to
alleviate a lot of that concern.
I think that this committee did a great job in allocating
the $380 million to the states. They have stated to me, because
we have gone around this country, the money would improve the
process immensely, but it was a great down payment. They are
looking to replace voting equipment. They are looking to
replace election night reporting equipment. They are looking to
replace registration equipment, and that requires resources.
So, I think that as we look toward 2020, we want to continually
have communications with the states but also ensure that they
still have some skin in the game as well, and that was required
with the 5 percent match, but also to ensure that we
continually work together.
Chairman Blunt. What about one of the questions and
concerns we had near the end and after the 2016 election was
the clearance relationship between state officials, critical
local officials, and Homeland Security. Have we done anything
to work on that where people, if they need to ask a question or
need to be told specific information, are more likely to be
told that than they would have been at an earlier time?
Ms. McCormick. The Department of Homeland Security has been
sponsoring getting clearances for state and local election
officials. They have got, I think, three for each state at this
point. We each have now finally gotten interim clearances.
Commissioner Hovland has had his clearance from his time in the
Senate. The rest of us are in the process of getting full
clearance and we finally--I got mine just a couple of weeks
ago. I got interim clearance.
So, we are finally getting some more visibility on what is
going on. We had not had clearances prior to just last month at
all so hopefully that will help the situation. I know the
Department of Homeland Security has been working on that. Also
trying to get clearances for local election officials as well.
So, I think that will help the situation.
Chairman Blunt. Mr. Hovland, since you have had clearance
the longest, on this issue is there a level of clearance that
state and local officials can get that is not the clearance
that the Commission has worked all this time now to get but can
get in a way that allows enough sharing so that they know what
they should be concerned about?
Mr. Hovland. Thank you, Chairman Blunt. I would say that--
so the Department of Homeland Security to my understanding is
getting state and local officials in at the secret level which
is where we are targeted at. For your information, I was
actually downgraded from when I was at the Senate. I do think
it is unfortunate, but I really do think the bigger issue is
about declassification. I know that has been talked about a lot
but being able to get actionable information to state and local
officials in a way that they can use that. There have been 1
day read-ins. Certainly, where we are today is a much better
place and so far beyond where we were in 2016.
The Government Coordinating Council, the ability to have
conversations with our Federal partners, with the Department of
Homeland Security, with the intelligence community, and state
and locals in the room has gone a long way to improve that
communication. But again, I think, as Senator Klobuchar
highlighted, the recent examples of Florida show that there is
more work to be done and we hope to help push that ball
forward.
Chairman Blunt. Well, thank you. Obviously we are going to
take time and have time for more than one round of questions,
and I will come back with other questions later.
Senator Klobuchar?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Last
month the Special Counsel's report concluded that Russia
interfered in our election, as I noted in my opening, in a
sweeping and systematic fashion. Among Russia's many targets
were individuals and entities involved in the administration of
our elections. Do you accept Special Counsel's Report, the part
of the report that says that Russia interfered in our elections
and that our elections remain a target for adversaries as the
FBI Director has said as well as Director Coats. Could you each
answer that question, commissioner, chair?
Ms. McCormick. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Yes, of course
we accept that, and we do acknowledge that Russia attempted and
has interfered in our elections in many different ways, through
social media and fake news, through trying to get through our
registration systems. Fortunately, they did not get to our
actual voting systems but that is something that we have to be
especially concerned with that we keep those systems protected.
But yes, we agree that that is what happened.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Just short answers.
Mr. Hovland. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. Hicks. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay, thank you. Do you agree that
states need modern voting machines that produce a voter
verified paper ballot? Everyone? Is there anyone that
disagrees?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, that is a best practice that we
encourage.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I guess you can just tell me if
you disagree. Anyone.
Mr. Hicks. The only piece I would add to that is to ensure
that those folks who have disabilities can still vote
independently and privately.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good point. Alright, Okay. Anyone
disagree that post-election audits are an important way to
confirm the results of an election?
[No response.]
Senator Klobuchar. No disagreement? Okay. Do you think we
should have better information sharing with the states after
what we just found out about Florida which was 2 years after
the election? Anyone disagree with that?
[No response.]
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Good. These are more specific
questions about the EAC. Yesterday, Senator Coons and I led a
letter expressing concerns about the lack of technology experts
currently employed by the Commission. The EAC's Acting Director
of Testing and Certification quit. I understand that a new
Director was suddenly appointed and that the Commission just
announced two additional hires. However, reports indicate that
the new Director of Testing and Certification will be working
full-time from Colorado. Do you anticipate any issues arising
from the fact that the person in charge of certifying our
election equipment will be working nearly 2,000 miles from EAC
headquarters, commissioner, chair?
Ms. McCormick. I do not expect there to be issues. He is
going to be located near one of our testing laboratories and in
this day and age there is no reason why we cannot conduct
business from different parts of the country, which we do
already.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Anyone want to add to that?
[No response.]
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Part of the EAC's mission is to
develop standards for voting equipment and those standards are
then used to certify the machines that are then used in our
elections. You are in the process of updating the standards of
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and will soon vote on the
high-level principles that will guide the development of the
technical certification requirements. I am aware there is some
debate over whether the EAC's technical requirements, which are
the intricate mechanical parts of the requirements, should also
require full vote by the commissioners. I know that some of you
have said that the technical requirements amount to policy and
should be voted on by the commissioners.
I am worried about a scenario where the guidelines don't
keep up with the advancements in technology and cybersecurity
best practices. The guidelines, as you know, have not been
updated in years and every voting machine certified by the EAC
has been certified against a standard that was developed in
2005. The Standards Board and Advisory Board as well as a
National Association of Election Directors have all strongly
recommended that the EAC allow these technical requirements to
be updated without a vote from every commissioner. Before you
vote on the VVSG 2.0, would you support a policy that allows
EAC technical staff to work with outside experts to update the
technical certification requirements without requiring a full
commissioner vote on every change?
Ms. McCormick. Thank you for the question, Senator. We are
waiting on a legal opinion on whether that complies with HAVA.
I think that is important. Also, with the Administrative
Procedures Act, there needs to be a way for positions to be
appealed under the APA. We are not sure exactly how that
applies with the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. I believe
that we need to have oversight. I believe that is why Congress
put the Commission in place----
Senator Klobuchar. So, if they ruled that it was okay under
HAVA, then would it be alright?
Ms. McCormick. I would have to take a look at that. I do
not know at this point. I tend to think that we should follow
the process that has been set forth in HAVA provided by
Congress.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, but what if they said it was okay,
you know, under HAVA? The legal opinion?
Ms. McCormick. I would have to take a look at that,
Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Hovland.
Mr. Hovland. Two points I would add to that or just, you
know, first of all the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines are
voluntary for the states to use and so I think it is crucial
for us to provide a product that they want and that they will
use. That is how we have realized the full benefit of the
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. I will say I think we
should strive to produce that product but a lot of the
criticism as well or as far as people wanting us to not vote on
it is related to the fact that we have lost a quorum over the
years, and I would just flag that my seat was vacant for 9
years, 11 months, and 7 days. I am hopeful that we do not lose
a quorum for that long in the future.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. Just one last question
on this. Commissioner Hicks, should the EAC update its policy
to include a sunset on the use of old standards in certifying
voting equipment? What do you think?
Mr. Hicks. I would think that we would look toward ensuring
that, as Commissioner Hovland stated, that these are voluntary
guidelines. So, if a state is still using the same systems
under those guidelines, then they should still be certified to
those guidelines. Then if we are going toward new equipment,
then that new equipment should be certified to the new
standards.
Senator Klobuchar. Alright, thank you.
Chairman Blunt. Senator King?
Senator King. Chair, am I correct that voter registration
systems are entirely exempt from your purview and
recommendations? Is that correct?
Ms. McCormick. We provide best practices, but we do not
certify voter registration systems. That is correct.
Senator King. So, you supply voluntary best practices.
Don't you think that registration systems and voting systems
are inextricably intertwined? Perhaps you could write a
recommendation to this committee that we might want to consider
further discussion of the issue of the security of registration
systems. Anybody?
Mr. Palmer. Senator, I think that is a great idea. Coming
from the state----
Senator King. Could the record show what he just said, I
like that. Go ahead.
Mr. Palmer. Coming from the state, the states are obviously
very interested in making sure that their statewide voter
registration systems are secure and accurate pursuant to HAVA.
EAC has conducted a number of studies on interoperability
and accuracy about registration systems. It may be something
that the EAC could play a role in auditing and providing some
recommendations to the states but that would require a change
to HAVA to allow the EAC to play that role. I believe we are a
trusted actor. You know, dealing with states and as a former
Director and Secretary in Virginia, I believe that that would
be sort of a positive approach that the EAC could take. I
believe it that that is a good idea.
Senator King. Thank you. Madam Chair, how many full-time
people do you have working on certification of voting machines?
Ms. McCormick. Right now, we have two. We have just hired
two more. One has resigned, effective at the end of this week,
so we will have three.
Senator King. The ranking member mentioned you are
certifying to a 2005 standard. Is that true?
Ms. McCormick. So, the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines
were originally created in 2005, which we call VVSG 1.0. When
Commissioner Hicks and I joined the Commission, the Commission
at that time in 2015 passed an update to that set of
requirements since they had not been updated in a long time----
Senator King. Was that what is being used for current
certification?
Ms. McCormick. So, no manufacturer has brought in a system
to be certified under what we call 1.1, and we are in the
process of setting the new standards 2.0, but all of the
systems out there now are certified to 1.0 and not to 1.1.
Senator King. Which is 2005?
Ms. McCormick. Correct.
Senator King. Do you think that is a problem?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, we do.
Senator King. Thank you.
Ms. McCormick. We are trying to remedy that, Senator.
Senator King. There was an Office of Personal Management
review of the operation of the EAC in September through
February 18. Without going into the content, are you all aware
of that study? Have you seen copies of it? Has it been
distributed to senior management in the agency?
Ms. McCormick. So, we were provided a redacted copy last
week. When Senator, or excuse me, when Commissioner Hicks and
I----
Senator King. When was the study completed?
Ms. McCormick. I am not sure exactly. Some time in the past
year.
Senator King. February 2018. Why in the world did it--the
mail is not that slow. Why did you get it last week?
Ms. McCormick. No, well we--the commissioners do not have
any part of hiring at the Commission. That is the purview----
Senator King. But are you concerned with how the agency is
managed, are you not?
Ms. McCormick. We are and we asked for the Executive
Director to partner with OPM to review the resources that we
had available to us, which are obviously much fewer.
Senator King. So, when did the Executive Director get the
study?
Ms. McCormick. That I do not know.
Senator King. Would you like to know?
Ms. McCormick. Sure.
Senator King. Does it not bother you that you just got it
last week and it was completed in February. That strikes me
as----
Ms. McCormick. He told us that he had received it and that
they were working on the recommendations.
Senator King. But he didn't give you a copy?
Ms. McCormick. No.
Senator King. I do not understand that as you are the
manager of the Board of Directors of this organization. To not
care about a major study on the operation of the organization,
which to my understanding was not very complimentary.
Ms. McCormick. Well we were briefed on what he was doing,
and we do not involve ourselves in the hiring process. HAVA,
specifically----
Senator King. This is not hiring, this is managing. I am
not talking about the hiring----
Ms. McCormick. It has to do with restructuring the
personnel in our office and I feel that that may have some
political implications and we thought that it was best to leave
it up to the Executive Director to decide that. He manages the
staff on a day-to-day basis, we do not, and it is not policy.
Mr. Hovland. I would add, I was asking for that and was
glad to finally receive it. We previously----
Senator King. Instead of current events, it is now history.
Mr. Hovland. I think one of the important things or one of
my big takeaways on it was that both the OPM flagged that, No.
1, that we don't have the resources we necessarily need to meet
our statutory obligations.
Senator King. Yes, three people to certify all the voting
machines in America doesn't sound like adequate staff to me.
Mr. Hovland. That is correct Senator. The other part I
would add is that while I think there are important things in
that report that we should address and absolutely need to be
held accountable for, I think one of the real challenges that
our agency has faced is for the better part of the last decade
we have been a political football and we have had our funding
continually cut.
And when you look at, actually Mr. Chairman, I was in
Kansas City last week and I was telling someone about the
status of our budget, our operating budget, was $7.95 million
for this Fiscal Year and they could not believe it, and they
said, we spend $8 million on potholes in Kansas City. I thought
that cannot be true, so I Googled it, by the way there is a lot
out there on potholes in Kansas City, but they are on top of
it. They are doing a great job, but they recently upgraded
their budget to $17 million for street maintenance in Kansas
City.
And that is a little bit beyond potholes, that is also
mowing and things like that, but the point is, what we are
working on and what we are working on with our state and local
partners is the infrastructure of our democracy. What we need
is an investment from Congress to help us do that work and to
be able to restore us to the levels we were at in 2010 where we
had 49 employees. That gives us so much more capacity to help
state and locals do the extremely difficult job they have.
Senator King. I appreciate that and I will support that.
Mr. Hovland. Thank you.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Blunt. Thank you, Senator King.
Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I was late,
but ironically I have been at an intelligence briefing and a
large part of it has been about the Russians invading our
election machinery. So, it seems like it is my day on Russian
involvement in our elections. We take this pretty personally in
Illinois. In June 2016 the Russians hacked into our voter file.
Fortunately for us, they did not pull off any tricks to
make it tough for people to vote but we know it happened. It
has been verified now and reported publicly, and we knew it at
the time. So, it was possible, and it happened, and it could
have made it extremely difficult for innocent people, legally
entitled to vote, to exercise their right to vote in 2016. They
did not. We do not want them to ever do that again. What I
learned this morning was that since the middle of 2017, with a
very modest down payment, we started intelligence efforts to
stop them from making a mess of the 2018 election and of course
2020, with some success in 2018, the whole story has not been
publicly reported but we made pretty substantial investments
understanding that they were investing everything they could to
try to undermine our election process.
There are a number of bills that are pending before
Congress, and I think some of them before this committee, on
the subject of election integrity. Mr. Chairman, I was not here
at the beginning. Are we going to be marking up any of those
bills on election security?
Chairman Blunt. It was not a topic of discussion today but
at this point I do not see any likelihood that those bills will
get to the floor if we mark them up.
Senator Durbin. Why?
Chairman Blunt. The same reason we could not get our bill
to the floor last year.
Senator Durbin. Which is?
Chairman Blunt. I think the Majority Leader just is of the
view that this debate reaches no conclusion and frankly I think
the extreme nature of HR1 from the House even makes it less
likely that we are going to have that debate.
Senator Durbin. Well I would hope----
Chairman Blunt. But we are having this hearing. We are
talking today how we interface with state and local officials
who do have this responsibility to conduct elections, and I
think we should have that.
Senator Durbin. I thank you for that. I hope you catch the
irony here that at the CIA and intelligence agencies millions
of dollars are being spent to stop the Russians from making a
mess of the 2020 election, and yet in the U.S. Senate we cannot
bring a bill to the floor to be even debated. Does not speak
very well of us. I mean I think the Mueller report was right.
It was sweeping and systemic and Illinois is evidence of it,
and they are coming at us again. They may not be alone in their
efforts, and shame on us if as elected members of the Senate we
can't even bring the matter to floor for vote or debate.
I think we have an obligation, more than anything, to make
sure that the integrity of our elections and democracy is
protected. So, several years ago, I had an opportunity to
travel as Chairman of the Subcommittee Judiciary and my topic
was voter fraud. I went to Ohio and I went to Florida. In both
of those states, I convened a hearing and I brought in election
officials from both political parties, put them under oath, and
asked them the following question. What is the incidence of
voter fraud in your state, Ohio, Florida, what is the incident
of voter fraud in your state which led you to decide to require
voter IDs and to limit the opportunities, at times, when people
can vote? And the answer from Republicans and Democrats alike
in both states was the same, none.
No prosecution for voter fraud in either of those states.
Maybe one. No incidents of voter fraud reported and yet there
is a movement in this country sponsored by groups like ALEC to
make it more difficult for people to vote. To limit the
opportunity period to vote. To require voter IDs without any
evidence that there is voter fraud of any magnitude going on
today. So, I ask anyone of you if you believe that there is
evidence of widespread voter fraud in any state that you have
come across now that would lead you to believe that we need to
restrict the opportunities for people to vote in this country?
Mr. Palmer. Senator Durbin, the EAC is--our job is to help
the states, to help voters vote. That is our mission. There may
be incidents of voter fraud, there may be incidents of cyber
intrusion, and that dramatically hurts voter confidence. It
makes our job tougher, but we are going to strive, and I know
that as we go across the country, we are hardening our
electoral systems across the country and we are preparing, as
we did in 2018, for 2020. Our job is to try to mitigate these
concerns of the voter confidence so they can have confidence in
our systems.
Senator Durbin. I want the machines to work. I want to be
confident in the results that come out of the machines, but I
want to give the average American who has a life to live, maybe
a job to go to, children to care about, an opportunity to vote
that is easier rather than harder. I do not know why we make it
more difficult across this country for people to vote,
particularly when there is no evidence of widespread voter
fraud. There is a fellow Professor named Justin Levitt----
Senator King. Except in North Carolina last fall.
Senator Durbin. That is true. Justin Levitt found 31
incidents of voter fraud out of hundreds of millions of votes
casts since 2000. So, all this talk now you need an ID card,
now you can't vote on Sunday before the election, now the early
voting period is going to be restricted. Why? Why are we doing
this in this country?
I mean I am a politician who submits my name to the voters
in Illinois. So far they kind of like me but they may decide
the other way. If it is a fair and free election, I accept the
outcome but restricting people's opportunities. We may have the
best machines in the world but if people cannot get in to vote
and there is an opportunity to vote, shame on us again. I think
that is the bottom line here as far as I am concerned. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Blunt. Thank you, Senator. Senator King, I would
point out that the last time a member of the House of
Representatives wasn't seated because of voter fraud was about
90 days ago. So, there is voter fraud. The last election we had
have over in Missouri because of voter fraud----
Senator King. Yes, but the North Carolina specifically.
Chairman Blunt.--was about 18 months ago. All of us don't
have the benefits of the clean history of Illinois elections
and we have to try to live with that. Back to my questions,
what is the difference--just to be sure I am clear on this, and
I do not disagree with the idea that we should have some advice
to give, maybe even certification of registration systems--but
explain to me the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. How is
that different from best practices since it is voluntary--
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines is the certification, the
stamp of approval, that you give a voting systems services
company, is that the key there? Nobody has to follow that but
is the theory that nobody would buy a system that didn't meet
these Voluntary Voting System Guidelines? I am just trying to
figure out the difference in that and best practices on the
voter registration front.
Mr. Hovland. I am happy to jump in there. So, yes, the
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines are, as they say, voluntary.
Now after HAVA passed, a number of states did adopt laws to say
that they needed to use machines that were certified under that
program. That is certainly part of it, but we have seen some
states also create their own testing and certification programs
either to supplement our existing programs, and then some
states, all states are certainly, depending on their state law,
are free to purchase equipment, regardless of whether it has
been tested to that program.
One thing I would flag though, as it relates to statewide
voter registration databases, is that the Help America Vote Act
was the impetus for people to create and adopt statewide voter
registration databases across the country, and so while voting
machines existed when that law passed, very few people had
statewide voter registration databases. I think to Senator
King's point, you know, and we are happy to provide best
practices around those systems and, or securing them, but I
would say that there has not been necessarily a congressional
look at that since HAVA passed, and that would be a historic
change since that legislation.
Chairman Blunt. Mr. Palmer, you said you thought it would
be a good idea to look at, I guess you are talking about
statewide systems. Do you also think it would be a good idea to
have guidelines for local voter registration systems, which are
generally the ones, I think, that are used on election day?
Mr. Palmer. My first instinct is to respond, I think that
as I look at the infrastructure across the country and the EAC
potentially reviewing voter registration systems or electronic
poll books, we need to take baby steps with this. My initial
view would be, let us see how it works as we work with states
and, you know, we are taking a look at voter registration
systems before we also look at county voter registration
systems. I would urge caution and sort of baby steps in this
area.
Ms. McCormick. Chairman Blunt, if I could clarify. There is
a difference between requirements under the Voluntary Voting
System Guidelines and best practices. Requirements are what we
use to inform the manufacturers of the standards they have to
meet to get certification. Because we have a national standard,
almost all the vendors will design their systems to meet those
requirements, whether the states require them or not. They are
voluntary for the states to adopt or not adopt, but in fact
what ends up happening is that the vendors all design their
systems to our requirements so that they can get certification.
Best practices are what we compiled from the states on how
elections should be run and the best way they should be run,
and those are our recommendations.
Chairman Blunt. So, the vendors are voluntold what they
should do?
Ms. McCormick. Exactly.
Chairman Blunt. Got it. They do comply?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, they do.
Chairman Blunt. Because the imprimatur of the EAC matters
to them as they offer their product?
Ms. McCormick. It matters to them and it matters to the
state and localities that are buying those systems. Yes, sir.
Chairman Blunt. Senator Klobuchar?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2017 the
Department of Homeland Security designated election systems as
critical infrastructure. This designation did not do anything
to diminish the role that state and local governments play in
administering elections. It also did not ensure that states
receive additional funding to help secure this ranking of
critical infrastructure. Instead, the designation means that
election infrastructure sectors are eligible to receive
prioritized assistance, particularly cybersecurity assistance
from the Department of Homeland Security. Do you agree with
designating it as critical infrastructure, and can you provide
an update on your work with Homeland Security? Maybe chairman.
Ms. McCormick. I do agree with the critical infrastructure
designation. There was some concern at the beginning that it
was a Federal overreach. I think that that has been tempered
down quite a bit. There is still a standing resolution from
NASS, the National Association of Secretaries of State,
opposing critical infrastructure, but I believe almost all the
secretaries now are onboard, and we are all working together
with the Department of Homeland Security to assure that we
maintain election security throughout the Nation.
Senator Klobuchar. That coordination with Homeland Security
and your agency, how is that going?
Ms. McCormick. That is going quite well. I met with
Director Kolasky last week and we had a very good meeting and
worked on discussing different places that we could combine our
efforts to continue to support the states and the localities
and securing their systems and mitigating the risks involved.
Senator Klobuchar. Anyone want to add anything on that?
[No response.]
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Under the President's budget
proposal, some of my colleagues were talking about budget and
the need for resources. I appreciate the support for resources
but under the budget proposal, the EAC's operations budget
would be cut by nearly $1 million. In your testimony
Commissioner McCormick, you emphasize the need for additional
resources. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. McCormick. Yes. As was mentioned the last time we had a
quorum, or four commissioners, was in 2009 and our budget was
double what it is now. We had 49 employees, we are down to 22.
We have additional requirements now that we did not have in
2009 and 2010, including the election security piece. Right
now, we are taking from other parts of our mission to cover
those areas that we are not funded to do, and I think that is a
priority for all of us that that gets done, but we would like
to hire more staff and create more programs that would benefit
the states and localities in supporting election security as
well as everything else that is required under elections.
We have included in our testimony a wheel of competencies
that are all the different areas that election administrators
need to be responsible for, including security as one plank on
that wheel. But there are a lot of parts to that wheel and we
need to support all of those. Right now, our resources are
strained. Our human resources, our financial resources, and we
are doing the very best that we can to meet our mission, but we
are in the need for additional resources.
Senator Klobuchar. I appreciate that. Mr. Hovland.
Mr. Hovland. I would just add that, you know, to echo what
the Chairwoman said, that that is a real need, and when you
look at also our submitted testimony, we outlined and there is
a graphic that shows where we had staff in 2010 versus today in
various departments. When you look at that, you can see, you
know, there are many areas where we have one staffer right now.
We don't have the ability--our General Counsel's Office, for
example, we have one attorney working as an attorney. In 2010,
there were six, and I am not saying whether that was the right
number, but we have a number of areas where when someone is out
of the office, and we need that person, things grind to a halt
and that is unacceptable. We need to be able to build and act
as a mature agency. We need the resources to do that and to
ensure there are backups and sufficient staffing in all of our
divisions.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, very good. Thank you. One last
question. Under the Help Americans Vote Act, the Executive
Director and General Counsel are appointed for 4 year terms and
the current terms for both positions are ending this November.
When a vacancy exists for either of these positions, the
Standards Board and the Board of Advisors both create a search
committee to recommend candidates and you all ultimately take a
vote to select the Executive Director.
This process can take time, and as we head into the
upcoming election, it is important for the EAC to have strong
and stable leadership, and this means, I would think, ensuring
that the Commission has a list of candidates to consider. When
will you hold a vote, this is for you chair. When will you hold
a vote to ensure that the Standards Board and the Board of
Advisors can begin their search for Executive Director and
General Counsel?
Ms. McCormick. Thank you for the question, Senator
Klobuchar. As you said, HAVA has a process and we will follow
that process. So, when there is a vacancy, we will begin that
process. However, we do need to note that it takes quite a
while to go through that process, and it is a concern of mine
that we do not have an Executive Director or General Counsel
during a Presidential year. So, we need to work on how we are
going to fix that situation and----
Senator Klobuchar. Is there--can you start the search ahead
of time somehow?
Ms. McCormick. Well, HAVA says that we have to wait for a
vacancy, and that is when the executive search committees get
appointed, as you mentioned.
Senator Klobuchar. Anyway, Okay. Because it would be--we
will work with you on this. We just have to figure out some way
to get this done as we head into this election I would think.
Ms. McCormick. I appreciate that. We do have competent
leadership in place right now, and I place my trust in them
right now. So, thank you for that.
Senator Klobuchar. Alright. Thank you.
Chairman Blunt. Just to followup, is there anything that
prevents you continuing that leadership if that is what the
Board decides to do, and the leadership are willing to stay?
Ms. McCormick. No. We need to have a vote to continue their
terms but there is nothing that prevents us from----
Chairman Blunt. When would their terms end again?
Ms. McCormick. In October of this year.
Chairman Blunt. Of this year. Your point, Senator
Klobuchar, is obviously that would put you into next year if
this all does not work out and you have to make a change. It
sounds like the law itself is something maybe we can look at
and see if there is something we could do there. But let us
continue to talk about that. Senator King and then Senator
Udall.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be sure I
heard something correctly. Your budget today is one half of
what it was in 2010?
Mr. Hovland. Yes.
Ms. McCormick. That is correct.
Senator King. That is unbelievable. I mean that is like
cutting the budget to the fire department in the middle of a
five-alarm fire. We have never had such a serious attack on our
electoral system as we have had in the last 3 years and your
budget is 50 percent of what it was 9 years ago. I mean----
Senator Klobuchar. I would note the Administration was
trying to cut it another million.
Senator King. I just----
Chairman Blunt. If we are noting that then you should also
note that the Commission went out of existence when the other
party was in power of both the Senate and the White House.
Senator King. I am not making a partisan point. I just
think----
Chairman Blunt. No, but I think Senator Klobuchar just did.
The reason this Commission is where it is, is a lot of the work
that the Commission is supposed to do didn't have a Commission
to do it. It is like that is why the standards are 2005
standards. There is nothing imminent that has caused this
problem.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay, but I think that--yes, but now
that we have a quorum, the fact remains that it is half of what
it was, and the Administration knowing that we have a quorum
and knowing that we are in a situation----
Chairman Blunt. Well, the budget did not get to be half of
what it was in the last 2 years or 4 years. The budget got to
be half of what it was----
Senator King. I am not casting blame, Mr. Chairman. I think
we ought to----
Chairman Blunt. Exactly, let's just be sure we are forward
looking.
Senator King. Absolutely. I am just saying we are in a very
serious situation in our election and this organization----
Chairman Blunt. We are. We are. And I, will now give you
some time back here.
Senator King. Thank you, sir. Can a machine be certified
today under the 2005 standard that does not have a paper
backup, a paper record? Say yes or----
Mr. Hicks. Yes, it can.
Senator King. Okay. I am concerned about that. Can a
machine be certified today that is connected to the internet
under the prior standard or the standard that we are operating
under? You want to take that under for the record?
Ms. McCormick. We will take that for the record. It is more
complicated than that. There are different ways like modems and
things that are attached to machine so----
Senator King. But clearly best practices are paper backup,
not connection to the internet. I mean, I have been through a
dozen hearings in two, three different committees on this. I
mean, it is just if we are certifying machines that are somehow
connected to the internet or that don't produce a paper backup,
then we are clearly not fully protecting our citizens. I think
you made this point, Madam Chair. You can provide best
practices to anybody, right.
I mean it seems to me that is something you can do. It is
not mandatory, it is voluntary, but one of the advantages you
bring to bear is a national perspective and you can learn what
is going on in all the states. If I were Illinois or
Massachusetts or wherever Idaho who is doing something really
effective and good, then you can act as a clearinghouse and
provide that as a best practice. I hope you will do that. It
seems to me there is power in that, even though it may not be
mandatory. Those would be the points I dislike. I am not in the
Appropriations committee, but I would like to volunteer to try
to help on this funding question because I think these folks
are trying to do a very important, complex job and we want to
make sure they have the resources to do so. Thank you very much
for your testimony.
Ms. McCormick. Senator if you want--I just got passed a
note from the staff to assure you that the VVSG does not allow
for internet connectivity.
Senator King. Good.
Ms. McCormick. The other part that you were talking about
is the clearinghouse and that is one of our main missions at
the EAC and that is one of the things that we spent a lot of
time on.
Senator King. Good. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Chairman Blunt. Well, thank you Senator King.
Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Blunt. Mr.
Hicks, as you are aware and this confirms some of what I am
sure all of you have been saying today, paperless voting
machines are widely considered too insecure for use in modern
elections and post-election audits are necessary to confirm the
outcome of the election. My For The People Act and Senator
Klobuchar's Election Security Act require states use paper
ballots. My bill provides the voter an opportunity to correct a
ballot should a mistake be made.
I am concerned that there are still some jurisdictions in
the U.S. that continue to use paperless voting machines which
makes it difficult or impossible to independently audit
election results. Furthermore, many states still rely on aging
voting systems that are susceptible to breaking down or may be
vulnerable to malicious actors. As we head into a new
Presidential election next year, where are we on addressing
these and many other issues with voting machines, and what is
the timeline for ensuring that every jurisdiction has access to
and can take advantage of the latest and secure voting systems?
Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Senator. First I want to say I am
sorry to hear that you are not running for re-election.
Senator Udall. Will not waste any time on that----
Mr. Hicks. I will stay at my 5 minutes. Second, I would say
that jurisdictions are free now to buy voting equipment that
adhere to those standards. The question becomes can they afford
that, and the answer is no, so they need additional resources.
The $380 million that was given last year was a great down
payment, but the states are still looking for additional
resources. The Commission is now working on our Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines 2.0 and we will be holding our third
and final hearing this coming Monday.
We had one in Memphis, Tennessee. We had one in Salt Lake
City, Utah. I think that we got a lot of information from both
of those, and I am looking forward to hearing from the
electorate on Monday. I think you are 100 percent correct in
terms of ensuring that the best way, and this is what we have
heard from our folks at the Department of Homeland Security and
others, that in order to accurately have an audit of a voting
equipment you need some sort of paper trail. But again, I would
like to state that we want to ensure that those folks who have
disabilities can still vote independently and privately under
the law.
So, there is no reason that we cannot have security and
accessibility now, especially since we have, in our pockets
these computers that are more powerful than the machines that
took man to the moon 50 years ago this year. So, I think that
this Commission we need to continually work hard for this, and
I have heard this from a lot of different folks over the issue
that I would like to also state that I would like to give a
written response for the record so that my words from previous
hearings are not misconstrued.
Senator Udall. Yes, no that would be great. I just wanted
to focus on the issue. Thank you for your kind comment, and I
am going to continue public service. This one is to the whole
committee, we know that in 2016 Russian cyber actors were able
to access voter databases and election software systems in 39
states and actively spread misinformation to try and destroy
Americans' confidence in our election process. How is the EAC
engaging with experts in the intelligence community and law
enforcement who warn that foreign actors may attempt to do the
same thing again in 2020? What is the EAC doing to help
election officials across the country to secure their systems
against foreign cyberattacks and limit the effects of
misinformation and influence operations designed to disrupt our
elections?
Mr. Palmer. Senator, we go across the country and we speak
to election officials. For example, the EAC just hosted two
meetings, our Standards Board meeting and our Board of Advisors
and we had ODNI come in and provide an intelligence briefing to
these election officials. Then we also have the Department of
Homeland Security there to provide, as a Federal partner,
additional resources with the EAC on how state and local
election officials can mitigate these threats. We feel that
this is, we are educating them, we are informing them,
providing the tools. Obviously the states care a lot about this
issue and are doing a lot at the state and local level and we
are just preparing for 2020.
Senator Udall. Any of the other Commissioners want to
comment on that?
Mr. Hovland. I would add that again our work through the
Government Coordinating Council has been very productive in
helping with information sharing, and that we have a long list
of resources, some of which were included, I think, in our
testimony, but we are happy to add to that what we have
provided to state and locals. But additionally, with work
around the grant money, the $380 million from Fiscal Year 2018
we were able to see sort of the states choose from a menu of
options on security, whether that is upgrading their statewide
registration database, employing cyber navigators, replacing
equipment, and we have made all those plans public so that
other states can see what they do.
And as not all states are spending the money at the same
time and so a lot of them reach out to our office, reach out to
our grants department and discuss what steps they can take, and
they are able to see what their colleagues are doing in other
states and take advantage of that to also upgrade their systems
accordingly.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Blunt. Other questions?
[No response.]
Chairman Blunt. On the funding issue, I think the fact that
the Commission is in place helps. The issues of things like if
you don't have a Commission, how do you update the standards,
are important issues for us to try to be helpful with you on.
On that topic, are you looking at the 2005--is that what the
voluntary standards effort that you are making right now is, to
update those standards? One other question that I have is how
many states still have election systems without a paper trail?
Mr. Palmer. I believe, Mr. Chair, I believe it is less than
five at this point. States are--at least I would say one or two
of the states, I think it was five, are moving toward different
solutions. For example, Georgia. I know South Carolina is
considering. So, there has been some movement toward paper-
based systems for those remaining DRE states. We are working on
VVSG 2.0. It is going to be an improvement to 1.0, 1.1 We are
trying to bring the decade of technology from 1.0 to the new
standards in 2.0, so we can bring the technologies of security
and accessibility to the voters.
Mr. Hovland. I would just echo Senator Udall mentioned the
jurisdictions without paper and again historically you have
heard the number, it is five states and then a variety of
partial states. None of the state and local officials that I
have ever talked to want paperless equipment. It is about
having the resources necessary to replace that equipment. Most
of that was bought with the original HAVA grants and so states
have tried to figure out how to replace that equipment. In some
jurisdictions it has been a challenge, and then I would echo
Commissioner Palmer absolutely. VVSG 2.0 is a critical move to
move our standards with the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines
to be in line with other industries and other technology
industries, as I mentioned earlier, so that we are able to
improve the infrastructure of our democracy.
Chairman Blunt. Thank you. Any further comments from the
panel? Senator Klobuchar? Senator King?
Senator Klobuchar. No, just thank you very much for your
work. I think you saw by the number of interesting questions
here, and thoughtful remarks about how important the next year
is, that we are very focused on this. We are glad you have a
quorum, and I think you should be assured we are going to keep
pushing to make sure that you have the resources to do your
jobs and also that the jobs get done. So, thank you.
Chairman Blunt. Thank you, Senator. Thanks to our panel,
and the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]