[House Report 118-465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                          { Report 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  2d Session   }                                          { 118-465

======================================================================
 
                       FEDERAL ELECTION AUDIT ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 17, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Steil, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4555]

    The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 4555) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
to allow the use of requirements payments to conduct a post-
election audit with respect to an election for Federal office 
in a State, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     3
Committee Action.................................................     7
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Committee Votes..................................................     8
Statement of Constitutional Authority............................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     9
Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items..................     9
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    10
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    10
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    10
Changes in Existing Law as Reported..............................    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    14

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Audit Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS FOR POST-ELECTION AUDITS.

  (a) Permitting Use of Payments for Audits.--Section 251(b)(1) of the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21001(b)(1)) is amended by 
inserting ``, including to conduct and publish an audit of the 
effectiveness and accuracy of the voting systems, nonvoting election 
technology (as defined in paragraph (4)(B)), election procedures, and 
outcomes used to carry out an election for Federal office in the State 
and the performance of the State and local election officials who 
carried out the election, but only if the audit meets the requirements 
of paragraph (4)(A)'' after ``requirements of title III''.
  (b) Requirements for Audits; Nonvoting Election Technology Defined.--
Section 251(b) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 21001(b)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(4) Requirements for audits conducted with requirements 
        payments.--
                  ``(A) In general.--An audit described in paragraph 
                (1) meets the requirements of this paragraph if--
                          ``(i) no individual who participates in 
                        conducting the audit is an employee or 
                        contractor of an office of the State or local 
                        government which is responsible for the 
                        administration of elections for Federal office 
                        or of a subsidiary or affiliate of such an 
                        office; and
                          ``(ii) the audit includes an examination of 
                        compliance with established processes for voter 
                        registration, voter check-in, voting, 
                        tabulation, canvassing, post-election 
                        proceedings (such as recounts and recanvasses), 
                        and reporting of results.
                  ``(B) Nonvoting election technology defined.--In 
                paragraph (1), the term `nonvoting election technology' 
                means technology used in the administration of 
                elections for Federal office which is not used directly 
                in the casting, counting, tabulating, or collecting of 
                ballots or votes, including each of the following:
                          ``(i) Electronic pollbooks or other systems 
                        used to check in voters at a polling place or 
                        verify a voter's identification.
                          ``(ii) Election result reporting systems.
                          ``(iii) Electronic ballot delivery systems.
                          ``(iv) Online voter registration systems.
                          ``(v) Polling place location search systems.
                          ``(vi) Sample ballot portals.
                          ``(vii) Signature systems.
                          ``(viii) Such other technology as may be 
                        recommended for treatment as nonvoting election 
                        technology as the Standards Board may 
                        recommend.''.
  (c) Sense of Congress Regarding Timing of Audits.--It is the sense of 
Congress that post-election audits of the effectiveness and accuracy of 
the voting systems, election procedures, and outcomes used to carry out 
an election for Federal office in a State and the performance of the 
State and local election officials who carried out the election are 
most effective when the audits are completed before the expiration of 
the period during which persons are authorized under State law to 
challenge the results of the election.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 4555, the Federal Election Audit Act, introduced by 
Representative Gregory Murphy (NC-03) permits a State to use 
federal Help America Vote Act (``HAVA'') Requirements Payments 
to conduct a post-election audit for federal offices in a 
State. Currently, HAVA funds are allowed to go towards a wide 
range of non-partisan, election administration activities. This 
bill authorizes federal dollars received from HAVA to be used 
by States to help conduct their post-election audits. Such 
audits conducted by the State using HAVA funds can be used to 
audit compliance with established processes for voter 
registration, voter check-in, voting, tabulation, canvassing, 
post-election proceedings, and reporting of results. However, 
the audit must be completed by individuals who are independent 
from the office that administered the election. Election 
transparency is crucial for the American people's confidence 
that our election process is free and fair, and audits of our 
elections will help to ensure transparency.

                  Background and Need for Legislation


                               BACKGROUND

    Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution\1\ 
(``the Elections Clause'') explains that the States have the 
primary authority over election administration, the ``times, 
places, and manner of holding elections, which includes post-
election audits. Conversely, the Constitution grants the 
Congress a purely secondary role\2\ to alter or create election 
laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative 
neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do 
other aspects of our federal system, this division of 
sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of American 
citizens most precious freedoms, the right to vote.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 (``[t]he Times, Places and 
Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be 
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress 
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations . . .'').
    \2\Although the text of the Elections Clause, read literally, 
without context, might suggest Congress has unlimited authority in this 
space, an examination of an examination of history, precedent, the 
Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and 
the Constitution itself provide that this is not the case. See Report: 
The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over 
Elections, Comm. on H. Admin. (Republicans) (Aug. 12, 2021), https://
republicanscha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/
documents/Report_The%20
Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20Constitutional%20Authority%20over%
20Elections
%20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pdf.
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the 2000 presidential election, Congress enacted 
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (``HAVA'') to help States and 
territories upgrade their voting systems and to improve the 
administration of federal elections. HAVA authorizes three 
distinct State\4\ funding programs. Section 101 provides 
``general improvements'' payments to improve the administration 
of elections for federal office, educate voters on voting 
procedures, secure voting rights, improve voting technology, 
and to train election officials, poll workers, and election 
volunteers.\5\ Section 102 provides States with payments to 
help replace punch card or lever voting machines.\6\ Finally, 
Section 251 directs the Election Assistance Commission 
(``EAC'') to provide ``requirements payments'' to help States 
carry out other parts of HAVA such as implementation of 
provisional voting, providing information at polling places, 
developing and maintaining a computerized voter registration 
list, and implementing identification requirements for first-
time voters who register by mail.\7\ Each program must follow a 
formula that determines the funds available for each 
section.\8\ These funds are distributed to the State to 
determine the distribution of their HAVA funds (e.g., to county 
or other local elections officials) to ensure the grant 
parameters are met. To ensure HAVA funds are being used in a 
lawful manner, the EAC's Office of Inspector General ``conducts 
periodic fiscal audits of State HAVA fund expenditures and 
determines if any corrective actions are necessary to resolve 
issues identified during audits.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See 52 U.S.C. Sec. 21141 defining ``State'' to include the 
District of Columbia and the U.S. territories.
    \5\Id. at U.S.C. Sec. 20901.
    \6\Id. at Sec. 20902.
    \7\Id. at Sec. 21001-21008, 21081-21085.
    \8\For section 101 payments, see Id. at Sec. Sec. 20901(d), 20903. 
For section 102 payments, see Id. at Sec. Sec. 20902(c), 20903. For 
section 251 payments, see Id. at 21002.
    \9\Audits & Resolutions, U.S. Election Assistance Commission (Aug. 
7, 2023), https://www.eac.gov/grants/audits-resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the core functions of the EAC is the distribution of 
HAVA grant funds to States to help them administer federal, 
State, and local elections. Congress appropriated a total of 
more than $1.3 billion under HAVA's Section 101 general 
improvements grant program for fiscal years 2018, 2020, 2022, 
and 2023.\10\ Importantly, HAVA allows States to use funds 
provided for Section 101's general improvement funding on 
activities provided for under Section 251's requirements 
payments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Karen Shanton, Election Administration: Federal Grant Funding 
for States and Localities, Congressional Research Service (May 8, 
2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46646.
    \11\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20901(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Election system audits are essential to maintaining the 
integrity of elections. Audits ensure that voting systems 
operate accurately and that election administrators comply with 
election law and policies, and, in doing so, promote confidence 
in election results.
    In response to the issues encountered in the 2000 
presidential election\12\ and 2004 congressional election,\13\ 
the Commission on Federal Election Reform, commonly referred to 
as the ``Carter-Baker Commission,'' led by former President 
Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, 
was created to make bipartisan recommendations for improving 
the U.S. electoral process.\14\ One of their recommendations 
was that election officials should publicly audit voting 
machines before, during, and after election day to increase 
confidence in election results.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Ron Elving, The Florida Recount of 2000: a Nightmare that Goes 
on Haunting, NPR (Nov. 12, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/
666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-
haunting.
    \13\Ted Barrett, CNN.Com--Democrats Challenge Ohio Electoral 
Votes--Jan 6, 2005, CNN (Jan. 06, 2005), https://www.cnn.com/2005/
ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote.1718/#: 
:text==WASHINGTON%20%28CNN%29%20--
%20Alleging%20widespread%20%22irregularities
%22%20on%20Election,official%20certification%20of%20the%202004%20preside
ntial
%20election%20results.
    \14\Commission on Federal Election Reform, Building Confidence in 
U.S. Elections (Sept. 2005), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/
eac_assets/1/6/Exhibit%20M.PDF.
    \15\Id. at 28 (``State and local election authorities should 
publicly test all types of voting machines before, during, and after 
Election Day and allow public observation of zero machine counts at the 
start of Election Day and the machine certification process.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2013, President Barack Obama established the 
Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a 
bipartisan group tasked to ``identify best practices in 
election administration and to make recommendations to improve 
the voting experience.''\16\ Like the Carter-Baker Commission, 
the Presidential Commission on Election Administration also 
called upon jurisdictions to conduct election machinery 
audits.\17\ However, the president's commission limited its 
recommendation to post-election audits.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Exec. Order. No. 13,639, 78 Fed. Reg. 19979 (Mar. 28, 2013).
    \17\Nathaniel Persily et al., The American Voting Experience: 
Report and Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Election 
Administration, Presidential Commission on Election Administration 
(Jan. 2014), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/
Amer-Voting-Exper-final-draft-01-09-14-508.pdf.
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over time, many jurisdictions have come to see the wisdom 
in election audits and voluntarily adopted audit requirements. 
By 2018, 36 States required post-election audits by statute, 
and seven States by administrative rule.\19\ By 2020, 44 States 
required post-election audits of voting equipment, with other 
States choosing to conduct them.\20\ In 2021, State lawmakers 
introduced over 68 bills addressing post-election audits in 29 
States.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Election Administration and Voting Survey 2018 Comprehensive 
Report, Election Assistance Commission (June 2019), https://
www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/2018_
EAVS_Report.pdf.
    \20\Election Administration and Voting Survey 2012 Comprehensive 
Report, Election Assistance Commission (Aug. 2021), https://
www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/
2020_EAVS_Report_Final_508c.pdf.
    \21\Election Audits Across the United States, Election Assistance 
Commission (Oct. 6, 2021), https://www.eac.gov/election-officials/
election-audits-across-united-states#::text=Election %20Audits
%20Across%20the 
%20United%20States%20(Full%20PDF)&text=In%202021%2C%20state%20lawmakers 
%20have,Types%20of%20audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since its inception in 2002, the EAC has allocated 
discretionary grants exceeding $1.4 million to support county 
and State organizations that research, develop, document, and 
share various protocols with all the States to improve 
management of pre-election audits, logic and accuracy testing, 
and post-election audit procedures.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another way the EAC assists States is through the 
development and implementation of audits pursuant to the 
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, (``VVSG'')\23\ which also 
includes overseeing a testing and certification program aimed 
at evaluating voter-system interactions and the design and 
development of voting systems.\24\ In 2021, the EAC adopted 
VVSG 2.0, to enhance future election equipment's capacity to 
facilitate efficient post-election tabulation audits and 
introducing a new requirement for software independence.\25\ 
Software independence ensures that any unnoticed alteration or 
error in the software cannot lead to an undetectable alteration 
or error in the election results. The development and adoption 
of VVSG 2.0 by the EAC has prompted the need to address 
forthcoming challenges, replace outdated voting machines, 
enhance the voter experience, and establish vital safeguards to 
uphold the integrity of the voting process, particularly by 
improving the auditability of voting systems. All newly 
certified voting systems adhering to VVSG 2.0 will guarantee 
that votes are cast, verified, and counted as intended, further 
ensuring accurately results reflect voters' true intentions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\52 U.S.C. Sec. 20962.
    \24\Id. at Sec. 20971.
    \25\Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, Election Assistance 
Commission (Feb. 10, 2021), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/
TestingCertification/Voluntary_Voting_System

_Guidelines_Version _2_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importantly, the implementation of VVSG 2.0 does not 
decertify voting systems certified under VVSG 1.1 or 1.0.\26\ 
These systems remain secure. Rather, it means that beginning on 
November 16, 2023, the EAC only certifies new voting systems 
using VVSG 2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) Migration, Election 
Assistance Commission (Nov. 1, 2023), https://www.eac.gov/election-
officials/voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-vvsg-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To safeguard the integrity of the electoral process, novel 
audit methods have been devised to identify discrepancies. 
Regardless of the specific post-election audit method employed, 
the overarching objective remains consistent across all 
jurisdictions: ensuring the accuracy and integrity of elections 
and reported results. While the EAC has made available better 
pathways and opportunities for auditing election systems, each 
State determines whether to implement audits. Expanding the use 
of current federal funding for post-election audits provides 
States with a useful tool.
    In the 117th Congress, former Ranking Member on the 
Committee on House Administration, Representative Rodney Davis 
(IL-13), introduced H.R. 8528, the American Confidence in 
Elections Act\27\ that permitted States to use HAVA 
Requirements Payments for post-election audits of federal races 
held within a State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\H.R. 8528--117th Congress (2021-2022): ACE Act, H.R. 8528, 
117th Cong. (2022), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/8528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, in the 118th Congress, Representative Bryan 
Steil (WI-01), introduced H.R. 4563,\28\ an updated version of 
the American Confidence in Elections Act, which includes very 
similar language to Rep. Murphy's H.R. 4555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\H.R. 4563--118th Congress (2023-2024): American Confidence in 
Elections Act, H.R. 4563, 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.congress.gov/
bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On July 11, 2023, Representative Greg Murphy (NC-03) 
introduced H.R. 4555, Federal Election Audit Act. This bill 
amends HAVA to allow States to use HAVA's requirements payments 
to conduct audits of the accuracy and effectiveness of voting 
systems, election procedures used to carry out elections for 
federal office, the performance of the election officials who 
facilitate such elections and reported results and outcomes. By 
increasing the sources of election audit funding, States will 
have more resources to conduct robust audits of election 
systems, a necessary step in promoting public confidence in 
election outcomes. To make clear, this legislation does not 
require States HAVA funds to be used for post-election audits, 
nor does it require that States begin conducting post-election 
audits. Rather this legislation simply expands available HAVA 
funds to conduct State level audits.
    The timeframe in which these HAVA-funded audits are 
conducted directly affects the capacity of the audit to not 
only detect but also to correct any discrepancies or issues 
that may have impacted the outcome of the election in question. 
If an audit is conducted after the period for contesting 
election results has passed, the opportunity to rectify any 
identified issues that could change the outcome is lost. In 
such a case, while the audit might provide valuable insights 
for improving future electoral processes, it fails to address 
any immediate concerns regarding the integrity of a just-
concluded election.
    Voters expect audits to function as a means of verification 
and, if necessary, a corrective mechanism to ensure that their 
votes are counted as intended and that the election results are 
trustworthy. By conducting audits within the contestable 
period, election officials have a window in which they can 
address and resolve any discovered discrepancies, thereby 
upholding the integrity of the election and maintaining public 
confidence in the democratic process. This timely intervention 
is essential for reinforcing the electorate's belief that their 
participation in the voting process is meaningful and that the 
electoral system is both transparent and accountable.

                            Committee Action


                       INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

    On July 11, 2023, Representative Gregory Murphy (NC-03) 
introduced H.R. 4555, the Federal Election Audit Act. The bill 
was referred to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on 
House Administration.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII, 
in the 118th Congress, the Committee on House Administration 
held two full committee hearings and one subcommittee hearing 
to develop H.R. 4555.
          1. On April 27, 2023, the Committee held a full 
        committee hearing titled, ``American Confidence in 
        Elections: State Tools to Promote Voter Confidence.'' 
        The hearing focused on Title I of H.R. 4563, the 
        American Confidence in Elections Act, what tools States 
        need to boost voter integrity and strengthen voter 
        confidence, and how the federal government can provide 
        States with access to the information needed to 
        accomplish these goals. Witnesses included: The 
        Honorable Ken Cuccinelli, Chairman, Election 
        Transparency Initiative, The Honorable Hans von 
        Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and 
        Senior Legal Fellow, on behalf of The Heritage 
        Foundation, The Honorable Mac Warner, West Virginia 
        Secretary of State, The Honorable Donald Palmer, 
        Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and 
        Mr. Joseph Paul Gloria, Chief Executive Officer for 
        Operations, Election Center.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\American Confidence in Elections: State Tools to Promote Voter 
Confidence: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Admin., 118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          2. On May 24, 2023, the Committee on House 
        Administration Subcommittee on Elections held a 
        subcommittee hearing titled, ``American Confidence in 
        Elections: Ensuring Every Eligible American has the 
        Opportunity to Vote--and for their Vote to Count 
        According to Law.'' The hearing highlighted the strong 
        election integrity reforms that have passed throughout 
        several States and how important it is for States to 
        learn from other States' successes in the election 
        arena. Witnesses included: Mr. Joseph Burns, Lawyer, 
        Law Office of Joseph T. Burns, PLLC, Ms. Lisa Dixon, 
        Executive Director, Lawyers Democracy Fund, Mr. Thor 
        Hearne, Founding Partner, True North Law, LLC, The 
        Honorable Scot Turner, Executive Director, Eternal 
        Vigilance Action Inc., and Mr. Deuel Ross, Deputy 
        Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and 
        Educational Fund, Inc.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\American Confidence in Elections: Ensuring Every Eligible 
American has the Opportunity to Vote--and for their Vote to Count 
According to Law: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Elections of the H. 
Comm. On Admin., 118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          3. On July 10, 2023, the Committee held a full 
        committee field hearing titled, ``American Confidence 
        in Elections: The Path to Election Integrity Across 
        America.'' The hearing outlined the newly introduced 
        H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections Act, 
        and highlighted the successes of S.B. 202, 2021. 
        Witnesses included: The Honorable Hans von Spakovsky, 
        Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior 
        Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Kathleen 
        Ruth, Former Vice Chair, Fulton County Board of 
        Registration and Elections, Mrs. Vernetta Keith 
        Nuriddin, Elections Consultant, City of Milton, and Ms. 
        Cathy Woolard, Chair, Fulton County Board of 
        Registration and Elections.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\American Confidence in Elections: The Path to Election 
Integrity Across America: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Admin., 118th 
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Consideration

    On November 30, 2023, the Committee on House Administration 
met in open session with a quorum being present and ordered the 
bill, H.R. 4555, the Federal Election Audit Act favorably 
reported, as amended.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following vote occurred during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 4555:
          1. Vote on an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        to H.R. 4555 offered by Mr. Steil, adopted by voice 
        vote.
          2. Vote on an amendment to H.R. 4555, offered by Mr. 
        Morelle, failed by a vote of eight to four. Nays: 
        Steil, B., Loudermilk, B., Griffith, M., Murphy, G., 
        Bice, S., Carey, M., D'Esposito, A., Lee, L. Ayes: 
        Morelle, J., Sewell, T., Kilmer, D., Torres, N.
          3. Vote to report H.R. 4555 favorably, as amended, to 
        the House of Representatives, passed by a vote of eight 
        to four. Ayes: Steil, B., Loudermilk, B., Griffith, M., 
        Murphy, G., Bice, S., Carey, M., D'Esposito, A., Lee, 
        L. Nays: Morelle, J., Sewell, T., Kilmer, D., Torres, 
        N.

                 Statement of Constitutional Authority

    Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
to the following:
           Article I, Section 4, Clause 1--``The Times, 
        Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and 
        Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by 
        the Legislature thereof . . .''\32\ This clause, 
        consistent with contemporary thought and context, 
        informs Congress that the primary authority to set 
        election law and to administer federal elections rests 
        with the States and not with the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Article I, Section 4, Clause 1--``To lay and 
        collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the 
        Debts and provide for the common Defence and general 
        Welfare of the United States; . . .''\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Article I, Section 8, Clause 18--``To make 
        all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
        carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all 
        other Powers vested by this Constitution in the 
        Government of the United States, or in any Department 
        or Officer thereof.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec.  8, cl. 18. In U.S. v. Singh, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the 
foreign national spending prohibition was justified under Congress' 
powers to provide for a uniform rule of naturalization, and was 
necessary and proper to the exercise of its immigration and foreign 
relations powers. See 924 F. 3d 1030, 1042-1043 (2019). Importantly, 
the court did not rely on the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4 
to justify the prohibition. Cf Report: The Elections Clause: States' 
Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections, Comm. on H. Admin. 
(Republicans) (Aug. 12, 2021), https:// republicanscha.house.gov/sites/
republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/Report_The%20 
Elections%20Clause_States%20Primary%20Constitutional%20Authority%20over%
20Elections %20%28Aug%2011%202021%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

            Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives and section 308(a)(I) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following opinion and estimate with respect to new budget 
authority, entitlement authority, and tax expenditures. The 
Committee believes that there will be no additional costs 
attributable to H.R. 4555.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost 
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not 
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this 
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such an 
estimate to be printed in the Congressional Record if it is 
received by the Committee.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The performance goals and objectives of H.R. 4555 are to 
allow States to use federal Help America Vote Act (``HAVA'') 
Requirements Payments to conduct a post-election audit for 
federal offices in a State. This legislation authorizes federal 
dollars received from HAVA to be used by States to help conduct 
their post-election audits. Such audits conducted by the State 
using HAVA funds can be used to audit compliance with 
established processes for voter registration, voter check-in, 
voting, tabulation, canvassing, post-election proceedings, and 
reporting of results. However, the audit must be done by 
individuals who are independent from the office which 
administered the election that is being audited.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.R. 4555 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 4555 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman 
of the Committee shall cause such an estimate to be printed in 
the Congressional Record if it is received by the Committee.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 4555 does not establish or authorize any new advisory 
committees.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This section provides a short title for H.R. 4555, the 
Federal Election Audit Act.

Section 2. Use of requirements payments for post-election audits

    Section (2)(a) allows HAVA funds to be used to conduct and 
publish an audit of the effectiveness and accuracy of the 
voting systems, nonvoting election technology, election 
procedures, and outcomes used to carry out an election for 
Federal office in the State and the performance of the State 
and local election officials who carried out the election, but 
only if the audit meets requirements set forth in (4)(A).
    Section (2)(b) provides the requirements for the election 
audits that will be funded with HAVA grants by adding (4)(A) 
(below).
    (4)(A) Requirements for audits conducted with requirements 
payments:
          (i) No one affiliated with the administration of 
        federal elections may be part of the audit.
          (ii) The audit must examine compliance of established 
        processes for voter check-in, registration, tabulation, 
        canvassing, post-election proceedings, and reporting of 
        results.
    (4)(B) Nonvoting Election Technology: Defines non-voting 
election technology and lists such non-voting election 
technologies in (i) through (viii).
    Section (2)(c) provides a sense of Congress that the timing 
of post-election audits should be completed before the State's 
deadline to challenge the results of the election.

         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 (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                     HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--COMMISSION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    Subtitle D--Election Assistance

                     PART 1--REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS

SEC. 251. REQUIREMENTS PAYMENTS.

  (a) In General.--The Commission shall make a requirements 
payment each year in an amount determined under section 252 to 
each State which meets the conditions described in section 253 
for the year.
  (b) Use of Funds.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) 
        and (3), a State receiving a requirements payment shall 
        use the payment only to meet the requirements of title 
        III, including to conduct and publish an audit of the 
        effectiveness and accuracy of the voting systems, 
        nonvoting election technology (as defined in paragraph 
        (4)(B)), election procedures, and outcomes used to 
        carry out an election for Federal office in the State 
        and the performance of the State and local election 
        officials who carried out the election, but only if the 
        audit meets the requirements of paragraph (4)(A).
          (2) Other activities.--A State may use a requirements 
        payment to carry out other activities to improve the 
        administration of elections for Federal office if the 
        State certifies to the Commission that--
                  (A) the State has implemented the 
                requirements of title III; or
                  (B) the amount expended with respect to such 
                other activities does not exceed an amount 
                equal to the minimum payment amount applicable 
                to the State under section 252(c).
          (3) Activities under uniformed and overseas citizens 
        absentee voting act.--A State shall use a requirements 
        payment made using funds appropriated pursuant to the 
        authorization under section 257(a)(4) only to meet the 
        requirements under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
        Absentee Voting Act imposed as a result of the 
        provisions of and amendments made by the Military and 
        Overseas Voter Empowerment Act.
          (4) Requirements for audits conducted with 
        requirements payments.--
                  (A) In general.--An audit described in 
                paragraph (1) meets the requirements of this 
                paragraph if--
                          (i) no individual who participates in 
                        conducting the audit is an employee or 
                        contractor of an office of the State or 
                        local government which is responsible 
                        for the administration of elections for 
                        Federal office or of a subsidiary or 
                        affiliate of such an office; and
                          (ii) the audit includes an 
                        examination of compliance with 
                        established processes for voter 
                        registration, voter check-in, voting, 
                        tabulation, canvassing, post-election 
                        proceedings (such as recounts and 
                        recanvasses), and reporting of results.
                  (B) Nonvoting election technology defined.--
                In paragraph (1), the term ``nonvoting election 
                technology'' means technology used in the 
                administration of elections for Federal office 
                which is not used directly in the casting, 
                counting, tabulating, or collecting of ballots 
                or votes, including each of the following:
                          (i) Electronic pollbooks or other 
                        systems used to check in voters at a 
                        polling place or verify a voter's 
                        identification.
                          (ii) Election result reporting 
                        systems.
                          (iii) Electronic ballot delivery 
                        systems.
                          (iv) Online voter registration 
                        systems.
                          (v) Polling place location search 
                        systems.
                          (vi) Sample ballot portals.
                          (vii) Signature systems.
                          (viii) Such other technology as may 
                        be recommended for treatment as 
                        nonvoting election technology as the 
                        Standards Board may recommend.
  (c) Retroactive Payments.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this subtitle, including the maintenance of effort 
        requirements of section 254(a)(7), a State may use a 
        requirements payment as a reimbursement for costs 
        incurred in obtaining voting equipment which meets the 
        requirements of section 301 if the State obtains the 
        equipment after the regularly scheduled general 
        election for Federal office held in November 2000.
          (2) Special rule regarding multiyear contracts.--A 
        State may use a requirements payment for any costs for 
        voting equipment which meets the requirements of 
        section 301 that, pursuant to a multiyear contract, 
        were incurred on or after January 1, 2001, except that 
        the amount that the State is otherwise required to 
        contribute under the maintenance of effort requirements 
        of section 254(a)(7) shall be increased by the amount 
        of the payment made with respect to such multiyear 
        contract.
  (d) Adoption of Commission Guidelines and Guidance Not 
Required To Receive Payment.--Nothing in this part may be 
construed to require a State to implement any of the voluntary 
voting system guidelines or any of the voluntary guidance 
adopted by the Commission with respect to any matter as a 
condition for receiving a requirements payment.
  (e) Schedule of Payments.--As soon as practicable after the 
initial appointment of all members of the Commission (but in no 
event later than 6 months thereafter), and not less frequently 
than once each calendar year thereafter, the Commission shall 
make requirements payments to States under this part.
  (f) Limitation.--A State may not use any portion of a 
requirements payment--
          (1) to pay costs associated with any litigation, 
        except to the extent that such costs otherwise 
        constitute permitted uses of a requirements payment 
        under this part; or
          (2) for the payment of any judgment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    The Federal Election Audit Act purports to allow Help 
America Vote Act Section 251 funds to be used for auditing the 
effectiveness and accuracy of voting systems, election 
procedures, and outcomes used to carry out an election for 
Federal office, as well as the performance of the State and 
local election officials who carried out the election. Post-
election audits are a necessary tool for ensuring accuracy and 
transparency in our elections. Unfortunately, the bill put 
forth by the Committee Republicans fails to provide any 
guardrails or protect against any of the abuses we have seen by 
third-party bad actors who have attempted to weaponize the 
post-election audit process in furtherance of election-related 
lies and disinformation, and election denialism.
    In fact, the Committee Republicans took it a step further 
with the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (``ANS'') 
offered at mark-up. Rather than provide common sense 
protections against abuse and misuse of taxpayer dollars, the 
Republican ANS prohibits any individual who is an employee or 
contractor of an office of the State or local government 
responsible for administering the election (or a subsidiary or 
affiliate of the office) from participating in conducting the 
audit.
    Prohibiting any individual who is an employee or contractor 
of the State or local government office responsible for the 
administration of the election from participating in conducting 
the audit-removes critical individuals from the process. State 
and local election administrators are the experts in how their 
elections are run. Committee Republicans should not be barring 
them from participating in an audit.
    We have seen too many troubling examples of bad actors 
conducting or attempting to conduct audits of the 2020 election 
to allow federal funds to be used to facilitate such 
undertakings without adequate safeguards in place. The false 
claims about the 2020 election results led to fraudulent post-
election audits in a cynical attempt to undermine confidence in 
the results.
    Committee Democrats believe that post-election audits are a 
necessary and critical part of the election administration 
process, and that we should be providing States with the 
resources they need to conduct them. While the Majority's bill 
would allow states to use HAVA funds to conduct audits, 
Rep:ublicans failed to provide any funding for elections in 
their Financial Services and General Government appropriations 
bill, all but ensuring that our State and local election 
officials are under-resourced headed into a Presidential 
election year.
    Committee Democrats are opposed to H.R. 4555, and believe 
that those who administer elections should not be barred from 
participating in a post-election audit, and that there should 
be proper, common sense guardrails on third parties--such as 
those offered in the Morelle amendment--to ensure that any 
post-election audit which utilizes Federal tax dollars meets 
the highest standards of rigor and integrity, and that taxpayer 
dollars are not used to further election denialism.
                                         Joseph D. Morelle,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]