[House Report 113-293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-293
======================================================================
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION TERMINATION ACT
_______
December 12, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Miller of Michigan, from the Committee on House Administration,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1994]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1994) to terminate the Election Assistance
Commission, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Background and Need for Legislation
INTRODUCTION
Congress established the Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). HAVA
allocated large sums of federal money to states to replace
punch card and lever voting systems and to develop statewide
voter registration databases. The administration of these
payments to states was a principal function of the EAC. In
addition, the EAC was established to operate a federal voting
system testing and certification program, maintain a
clearinghouse of election administration information, and
perform a series of research studies mandated by HAVA.
Today, the flow of election administration funds to states
from the federal government has ended. The EAC has completed
its HAVA-required research (with one exception discussed
below). Even with those programs, the EAC has overhead costs
that exceed its budget for program administration. Without
them, the EAC is a bureaucracy in search of a mission.
Worse, it is a bureaucracy with a history of poor financial
and managerial decisions and (apparently meritorious) claims of
employment discrimination based on political viewpoint and
military service. The EAC has repeatedly become mired in
partisan controversies. The National Association of Secretaries
of State has twice called on Congress to dissolve the EAC.
Heeding the Secretaries' call and recognizing the record
before it, this Committee reported H.R. 672 in the 112th
Congress to eliminate the EAC. The full House in the 112th
Congress approved H.R. 3463, which would have eliminated the
EAC along with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The
Committee's report on H.R. 672, House Report 112-100, part 1,
details the Committee's findings regarding the EAC's completion
of its functions and history of mismanagement.
The EAC has existed with no commissioners since 2011, no
quorum of commissioners since 2010, and no executive director
or general counsel since 2011 and 2012, respectively.
ORGANIZATION AND BUDGET OF THE EAC
The EAC was established with four full-time commissioners
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. HAVA
directs that one commissioner be appointed at the
recommendation of each of the Speaker of the House, House
Minority Leader, Majority Leader of the Senate, and Minority
Leader of the Senate. HAVA also established the positions of
executive director and general counsel, each appointed by the
commissioners. All other staff positions are established and
hired at the discretion of the executive director. The EAC has
existed with no commissioners since 2011, no quorum of
commissioners since 2010, and no executive director or general
counsel since 2011 and 2012, respectively.
HAVA authorized appropriations for the EAC of up to $10
million in each of the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. No
appropriations were authorized for years after 2005.
Notwithstanding the authorization's limit of $10 million per
year and its duration only through 2005, in FY 2010 the EAC's
budget was $17.959 million. In FY 2012, the appropriated budget
fell to $11.5 million. The EAC's requested budget for FY 2014
is $11.062 million. Of that, $2.75 million would be transferred
to NIST for technical and scientific support of the testing and
certification program and $8.312 million is for operation of
the agency. The budget request the EAC submitted to Congress
breaks the operating budget request into the following amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Indirect Costs'' (management/overhead) 55% $4,577,446
Grants.................................. 2.7% 228,471
Research................................ 9.8% 810,971
Testing and Certification............... 9.5% 786,914
Communications.......................... 8.7% 721,197
Inspector General....................... 14.3% 1,187,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding up the budgets for the four program departments,
they total $2,547,553. This means the agency has a management
cost of $4.5 million for $2.5 million worth of programs. This
is an unjustifiably inefficient organization by any measure,
and an even worse ratio than in the last Congress.
THE EAC'S ROLE IN ELECTIONS
Since the enactment of HAVA, there have been three major
contested elections that called into doubt the functioning of
the election process: for Governor of the State of Washington
in 2004, for the House of Representatives in the 13th District
of Florida in 2006 and for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in
2008. Each resulted in a protracted dispute that was not
resolved until months after the election, and each led to
charges of system breakdowns in the election process and
partisan manipulation by election officials. Neither HAVA nor
the EAC prevented the problems uncovered in those elections,
and the EAC had no role in resolving them.
The EAC does not register voters, nor does it have any
enforcement authority over laws governing voter registration.
The EAC has no role in the casting or counting of ballots, or
resolving election disputes. Election officials have direct
functional connections to the EAC when they receive funds from
it and when they seek to use voting systems certified by it.
Other contact is informational, and the informational function
does not need to be performed by the federal government.
Likewise, voters have direct functional connections to the
EAC only when they use the EAC's website to download the
national voter registration form--which is available from other
sources and can be made available on any government web site.
Other contact between the EAC and voters is informational, and
the information from the EAC is second-hand because the actual
rules and procedures for elections are set by state and local
jurisdictions.
When the President deemed it necessary to conduct a review
of the 2012 election, he did not turn to the EAC to perform it.
Instead he created, through executive order, a Presidential
Commission on Election Administration. This shows both a lack
of confidence in the EAC and the lack of a need for it to
address perceived issues in election administration.
EAC PROGRAM AREAS
Grants
Some election officials have questioned the elimination of
the EAC because of the hardship their jurisdictions will suffer
without continued federal funding. No funds have been provided
since 2010 and it appears unlikely they will be provided in the
future. The lack of funding is not caused by the proposed
termination of the EAC. Rather, the absence of funds available
in a strained federal budget is merely one more reason why
operation of the EAC is an unnecessary and wasteful use of
scarce taxpayer resources. With no funds left to distribute,
there is no reason to retain the EAC to disburse them.
Research
HAVA required the EAC to perform five specified research
studies: (1) facilitating military and overseas voting, (2)
human factors in voting system design, (3) using Social
Security numbers in voter registration, (4) electronic and
Internet voting and (5) free or reduced postage for absentee
ballots. Four of those studies have been completed. The fifth
study, on the use of Social Security numbers in voter
registration, is now some eight years overdue. In the face of
this delay, it seems unlikely the final study will be completed
in the foreseeable future.
The EAC also produces documents called Election Management
Guidelines and Quick Start Guides. The agency has completed all
of these documents that it plans to produce. Even if they had
not been completed, their value has been questioned in
congressional testimony and elsewhere.
With the required research effectively complete, and other
materials likewise complete, there is no reason to retain the
EAC to perform research. There is no Congressional mandate for
further research, and any research conducted likely would be
designed to justify the EAC's continued existence rather than
to fulfill an important and uniquely federal need.
Testing and certification
Prior to the enactment of HAVA, the National Association of
State Election Directors operated a program to test and certify
voting systems so that election officials purchasing such
systems had some independent validation of their quality and
performance. The Federal Election Commission also played a role
in the process prior to the enactment of HAVA through the
voting system standards it issued in 1990.
HAVA created a federal program to perform this function.
The program involves four parts: developing the standards
voting systems are required to meet in order to be certified
(the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, or VVSG), accrediting
labs to test voting systems against those standards, conducting
the tests, and certifying that systems satisfy the standards.
Twenty states and territories make no use of the federal
testing and certification program. The other 35 states and
territories use the federal standards and certification process
in some way--some by requiring federal certification of the
systems they purchase, some by requiring that systems be tested
to federal standards in a federally-accredited lab and some by
requiring testing to federal standards without specifying the
type of lab that may conduct the tests.
The last full adoption of a VVSG occurred in 2005, leaving
the EAC process far behind the development of technology in
voting systems. The federal testing and certification program
using standards developed under the HAVA system is not
effectively supporting voting system quality. For states who
want to participate in a joint process rather than create and
test to their own standards, there are alternative institutions
to the federal government such as one or more academic
facilities, an association of election officials, or a
consortium of states established for the purpose. The state
stakeholders who bear the burdens of selecting and paying for
voting systems are in the best position to decide upon and
manage the appropriate process. Even if the testing and
certification program were to continue as a function of the
federal government, it does not justify operating a separate
federal agency.
Communications
Prior to the enactment of HAVA, the Federal Election
Commission operated a clearing house of election administration
information for state and local election officials. This
clearinghouse has been absorbed into the EAC's web site. The
operation of a web site collecting data on election
administration does not justify operating a separate federal
agency.
MANAGEMENT AND PARTISAN CONTROVERSY
As described in the report accompanying H.R. 672 in the
112th Congress, a series of incidents at the EAC have shown a
pattern of questionable decision-making, poor financial choices
and partisan controversy. These include questionable spending,
claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment, and
politicized decision-making. Most disturbingly, in two separate
attempts to hire a general counsel the EAC discriminated
against applicants, first on the basis of political affiliation
and then on the basis of military service. Both resulted in the
payment of substantial sums of taxpayer funds to the
applicants.
CONCLUSION
The EAC has completed most of its major functions. Its
operations and budget show that its mission cannot justify
maintaining a federal agency. The EAC has a record of
discrimination based on political affiliation and military
service and a history of partisan controversy. The functions of
the EAC that continue to be necessary and valuable can be
performed elsewhere more efficiently and at least as
effectively.
Introduction and Referral
On May 13, 2013, Congressman Gregg Harper of Mississippi
introduced H.R. 1994, which was referred to the Committee on
House Administration.
Hearings
There were no legislative hearings held on H.R. 1994.
Committee Consideration
On June 4, 2013, the Committee on House Administration met
to consider H.R. 1994. The Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably to the House without amendment by voice vote with a
quorum present.
Committee Record Votes
In compliance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(b), requiring
the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to
report, together with the names of those voting for and
against, to be printed in the Committee report, the Committee
states that there were no record votes during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1994.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
In compliance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), the
Committee states that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under House Rule X,
clause 2(b)(1), are incorporated into the general discussion
section of this report.
Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items
The bill does not provide new budget authority, new
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under
House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2), and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is not required.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
July 16, 2013.
Hon. Candice Miller,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1994, the Election
Assistance Commission Termination Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Maggie
Morrissey and Matthew Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1994--Election Assistance Commission Termination Act
Summary: H.R. 1994 would eliminate the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and transfer some of its responsibilities to
the Federal Election Commission (FEC), while the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) would be responsible for winding
down the commission's contracts and agreements. The EAC would
terminate within 60 days of the bill's enactment.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1994 would reduce
spending that is subject to appropriation by $42 million over
the 2014-2018 period. Enacting the bill would not affect direct
spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do
not apply.
H.R. 1994 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1994 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800
(general government).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Terminating Election Assistance Commission:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... -9 -10 -10 -10 -11 -50
Estimated Outlays................................... -8 -9 -9 -10 -10 -46
Federal Election Commission:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... * * * * * 1
Estimated Outlays................................... * * * * * 1
Office of Management and Budget:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 2 1 0 0 0 3
Estimated Outlays................................... 2 1 0 0 0 3
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level................... -7 -9 -10 -10 -11 -46
Estimated Outlays............................... -6 -8 -9 -10 -10 -42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted before the end of 2013, that
amounts not needed after eliminating the EAC would not be
appropriated, that the necessary amounts for new activities
will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year, and
that the new spending will follow historical patterns for
similar activities.
The EAC advises state and local governments on
administering elections and provides grants to states to
replace punch-card voting machines and make other improvements
to voting systems. The commission also develops voluntary
standards for managing elections, serves as a clearinghouse for
information, and reviews procedures for administering federal
elections.
Terminating Election Assistance Commission
Eliminating the EAC would reduce the need for appropriated
funds in future years. Under current law, up to $10 million is
authorized to be appropriated annually for the EAC. In fiscal
year 2013, the commission received an appropriation of $9
million. Assuming appropriations would continue under current
law at that level with an adjustment for anticipated inflation,
CBO estimates that terminating the EAC would reduce spending
that is subject to appropriation by $46 million over the 2014-
2018 period.
Federal Election Commission
H.R. 1994 would transfer some EAC responsibilities to the
FEC. Based on information from the EAC and FEC, CBO expects
that those new responsibilities would require the FEC to hire
one or two additional employees. CBO estimates that those
additional employees would cost nearly $1 million over the next
five years.
Office of Management and Budget
OMB would be responsible for closing down the EAC and
fulfilling the agency's final contracts and agreements. Based
on information from the EAC, final responsibilities would
involve auditing competitive grant programs. CBO estimates that
closing down the agency would cost $3 million over the 2014-
2018 period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1994
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford and
Maggie Morrissey; Impact on state, local, and tribal
governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; Impact on the private
sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
In compliance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4), the
Committee states that the general discussion section of this
report includes a statement of the general performance goals
and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives,
for which H.R. 1994 authorizes funding.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to Amendment XVI of the U.S. Constitution relating to the
collection of income tax and additionally to Article I, Section
4 of the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the authority to
make laws governing the time, place and manner of holding
Federal elections.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with House Rule XXI, clause 9, the Committee
states that H.R. 1994 does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is
as follows:
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION
Sec. 1001. Termination.
Sec. 1002. Office of Management and Budget to perform transition
functions.
Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
Sec. 1004. Return to Federal Election Commission of authority to carry
out certain functions under National Voter Registration Act of
1993.
Sec. 1005. Commission termination date.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMISSION
Subtitle A--Establishment and General Organization
* * * * * * *
PART 3--TECHNICAL GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SEC. 221. TECHNICAL GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Termination.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1005, the Development Committee is
terminated.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION
SEC. 1001. TERMINATION.
Effective on the Commission termination date, the Commission
(including the Election Assistance Commission Standards Board
and the Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors under
part 2 of subtitle A of title II) is terminated and may not
carry out any programs or activities.
SEC. 1002. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO PERFORM TRANSITION
FUNCTIONS.
Except as provided in section 1004, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall, effective upon the
Commission termination date--
(1) perform the functions of the Commission with
respect to contracts and agreements described in
subsection 1003(a) until the expiration of such
contracts and agreements, but shall not renew any such
contract or agreement; and
(2) take the necessary steps to wind up the affairs
of the Commission.
SEC. 1003. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) Prior Contracts.--The termination of the Commission under
this title shall not affect any contract that has been entered
into by the Commission before the Commission termination date.
All such contracts shall continue in effect until modified,
superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance
with law by an authorized Federal official, a court of
competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
(b) Obligations of Recipients of Payments.--
(1) In general.--The termination of the Commission
under this title shall not affect the authority of any
recipient of a payment made by the Commission under
this Act prior to the Commission termination date to
use any portion of the payment that remains unobligated
as of the Commission termination date, and the terms
and conditions that applied to the use of the payment
at the time the payment was made shall continue to
apply.
(2) Special rule for states receiving requirements
payments.--In the case of a requirements payment made
to a State under part 1 of subtitle D of title II, the
terms and conditions applicable to the use of the
payment for purposes of the State's obligations under
this subsection (as well as any obligations in effect
prior to the termination of the Commission under this
subtitle), and for purposes of any applicable
requirements imposed by regulations promulgated by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
be the general terms and conditions applicable under
Federal law, rules, and regulations to payments made by
the Federal Government to a State, except that to the
extent that such general terms and conditions are
inconsistent with the terms and conditions that are
specified under part 1 of subtitle D of title II or
section 902, the terms and conditions specified under
such part and such section shall apply.
(c) Pending Proceedings.--
(1) No effect on pending proceedings.--The
termination of the Commission under this title shall
not affect any proceeding to which the Commission is a
party that is pending on the Commission termination
date, including any suit to which the Commission is a
party that is commenced prior to such date, and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
be substituted or added as a party to the proceeding.
(2) Treatment of orders.--In the case of a proceeding
described in paragraph (1), an order may be issued, an
appeal may be taken, judgments may be rendered, and
payments may be made as if the Commission had not been
terminated. Any such order shall continue in effect
until modified, terminated, superseded, or revoked by
an authorized Federal official, a court of competent
jurisdiction, or operation of law.
(3) Construction relating to discontinuance or
modification.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
deemed to prohibit the discontinuance or modification
of any proceeding described in paragraph (1) under the
same terms and conditions and to the same extent that
such proceeding could have been discontinued or
modified if the Commission had not been terminated.
(4) Regulations for transfer of proceedings.--The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget may
issue regulations providing for the orderly transfer of
proceedings described in paragraph (1).
(d) Judicial Review.--Orders and actions of the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget in the exercise of
functions of the Commission under section 1002 shall be subject
to judicial review to the same extent and in the same manner as
if such orders and actions had been issued or taken by the
Commission. Any requirements relating to notice, hearings,
action upon the record, or administrative review that apply to
any function of the Commission shall apply to the exercise of
such function by the Director.
SEC. 1004. RETURN TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY
OUT CERTAIN FUNCTIONS UNDER NATIONAL VOTER
REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.
Effective on the Commission termination date, there are
transferred to the Federal Election Commission any functions
transferred to the Election Assistance Commission under section
802 (relating to functions described in section 9(a) of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
SEC. 1005. COMMISSION TERMINATION DATE.
The ``Commission termination date'' is the first date
following the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this title.
----------
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS
* * * * * * *
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 311. (a) The Commission shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8) prescribe rules, regulations, and forms to carry
out the provisions of this Act, in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (d); [and]
(9) transmit to the President and to each House of
the Congress no later than June 1 of each year, a
report which states in detail the activities of the
Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act,
and any recommendations for any legislative or other
action the Commission considers appropriate[.];
(10) carry out the duties described in section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 9 OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993
SEC. 9. FEDERAL COORDINATION AND REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The [Election Assistance Commission] Federal
Election Commission--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER ROBERT A. BRADY, REP. ZOE LOFGREN AND
REP. JUAN VARGAS
H.R. 1994, ``Election Assistance Commission Termination
Act'', represents the third time House Republicans have tried
to eliminate the EAC, the only federal agency tasked with
helping state and local officials administer their elections.
Our position on this legislation has not changed and we opposed
it both in the Committee and on the House floor all through the
112th Congress. It is our hope that we can work with the
Majority to arrive at mutually agreeable positions on these
matters, rather than endlessly entertain the same shortsighted
legislation from Congress to Congress. There is too much
important work to be done to continually waste time like this.
Touted as a cost-cutting measure, elimination of the EAC
will only result in cost-shifting to states and other federal
agencies at the expense of effective election administration.
The multitude of services the EAC provides has been
discussed at length in previous Committee reports, but it is
useful to address them again. Among the valuable functions of
the EAC are:
LEAC's Election Administration and Survey is
the largest and most comprehensive collection of
election administration information in a single source
and is freely available to the public.
LEAC's testing and certification function
ensures that voting machine manufacturers are held
accountable for malfunctioning machines that
disfranchise voters.
LEAC's Accessible Voting Technology Initiative
focuses on making casting a ballot accessible for
disabled voters.
LThe EAC has compiled and maintains a
comprehensive database on military and overseas voting
statistics and information and provides annual UOCAVA
reports to issue best practices for UOCAVA voters used
by legislatures to improve voting for military members
abroad.
LEAC publishes materials in more than half a
dozen languages, ensuring that eligible voters who
speak a primary language other than English are able to
effectively cast their ballot as intended and are never
disfranchised because of a language barrier.
The debacle of the 2000 presidential election led to the
creation of the EAC. ``The agency has outlived its purpose'' is
a popular argument from the Majority, though we saw in the 2012
presidential election, particularly in the interminably long
lines voters faced, that election administration is far from
perfect. Elections administration is an ever-changing and often
unpredictable business and it's shortsighted and foolhardy to
proclaim that the only agency tasked with improving it has no
purpose.
The Democrats of the Committee on House Administration
offered an amendment to H.R. 1994 that reauthorized the EAC, to
allow the agency to continue their important mission. It called
for the EAC to determine the extent to which our polling places
are accessible for disabled voters pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act to ensure all voters can cast a ballot.
The amendment also tasked the EAC with determining the most
cost-effective methods to administer elections as well as
methods for increasing the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of
the agency itself. Finally, the amendment would have provided
more transparency in the testing and certification of voting
machines by establishing an escrow account to prevent machine
manufacturers from paying directly the laboratories auditing
their machines, and would have made information about the
testing and certification results available to the public.
Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected on a voice vote.
The singular goal of the EAC is to improve election
administration in our federal elections. Though the agency's
services are often overlooked, particularly in light of the
constant attempts to abolish it, elections officials from
across the country and on both sides of the aisle will attest
to its value. Standing up for the EAC means standing up for the
franchise that so many have worked so hard to expand. We must
protect that sacred right and preserve the EAC.
Robert A. Brady.
Zoe Lofgren.
Juan Vargas.