[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MAY 21, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-584 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California Ranking Member
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARK WALKER, North Carolina
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
PETE AGUILAR, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 21, 2019
Page
Oversight of the Election Assistance Commission.................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren.................... 4
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................ 7
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis................... 9
WITNESSES
Joint Statement of Hon. Christy McCormick, Chairwoman; Hon.
Benjamin Hovland, Hon. Don Palmer, Hon. Thomas Hicks, Election
Assistance Commission.......................................... 14
Prepared statement of Election Assistance Commissioners...... 17
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Election Assistance Commission, Questions for the Record,
responses...................................................... 144
Hon. Christy McCormick, Commissioner and Chairwoman, Election
Assistance Commission, addendum letter of August 12, 2019,
submission..................................................... 215
Election Assistance Commission, Roles and Responsibilities of the
Commissioners and Executive Director, submission............... 249
Election Assistance Commission, Organizational Management Policy
Statement, submission.......................................... 257
Johnson County Election Office, Performance Audit Report No.
2016-01, submission............................................ 273
OVERSIGHT OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:16 p.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[Chairperson of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Davis of
California, Butterfield, Fudge, Davis of Illinois, Walker, and
Loudermilk.
Staff Present: Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; David Tucker,
Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian; Jamie Fleet, Staff
Director; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; Elizabeth
Hira, Counsel--Elections; Stephen Spaulding, Counsel--
Elections; Courtney Parella, Minority Communications Director;
Jennifer Daulby, Minority Staff Director; Timothy Monahan,
Minority Director--Oversight; and Joy Yunji-Lee, Minority
Counsel.
The Chairperson. Our Committee will come to order.
First, apologies to our witnesses, our Commissioners, for
your patience. We had to reschedule because of a classified
briefing, and then we had votes, which made us half an hour
even later than we thought. We are sorry, but that is the
nature of things these days.
This is, however, a very important hearing on the Election
Assistance Commission. It has been over eight years since this
Committee held an oversight hearing on the EAC, and, over these
8 years, the responsibilities and, more significantly, the
challenges in election administration have evolved.
The greatest change has been the introduction of a known
election threat to our Nation. In advance of the Presidential
election in 2016, Russia conducted cyber operations to
interfere in Federal elections and to undermine public
confidence in our American democracy.
In response, last year, Congress appropriated $380 million
for the EAC to distribute to States to support equipment
purchases and security enhancements. The EAC has done a
commendable job of distributing those sorely needed funds to
States quickly and efficiently. I was heartened to learn that
States could begin collecting their grant money less than 30
days from the time the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act was signed into law.
Let's be clear: That appropriation should be just a start.
This Committee must act on legislation to secure our elections.
For the first time in 10 years, the EAC has its full
complement of four commissioners. With a quorum now in place
since the addition of two new commissioners, the Commission is
poised for a fresh start. Because there is much work to do, we
intend to keep you very busy.
The Committee finds itself in a similar posture, with
changes in leadership and membership. I am glad to sit next to
our Ranking Member, Rodney Davis of Illinois, because Mr. Davis
represents some of the good intentions of my colleagues across
the aisle. We are no longer considering the termination of this
agency, and we both agree that threats to our election systems
are important and deserve our attention.
In the wake of irrefutable evidence of foreign interference
in our elections, I am hopeful we can make progress on election
security soon. There have been bipartisan statements in support
of new election security measures, and I am hopeful we can turn
those statements into action, because this Committee should
act.
I am confident that we can produce a bipartisan election
security initiative that will help our colleagues in the Senate
see a way forward.
In last week's EAC oversight hearing in the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Chairman Roy Blunt, our
former colleague here in the House, explained that the Senate
did not move forward on election security last year or this
year because, I quote, ``I think the Majority Leader is of the
view that this debate reaches no conclusion.''
The leaders of this Committee and the leaders of our
national intelligence community have seen a clear conclusion:
We must secure our elections, and the buck must stop with us.
As Senator Durbin pointed out last week about previous
election interference, it was, and I quote, ``sweeping and
systematic. And Illinois has evidence of it. They are coming at
us again, and they might 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 the Floor for a vote or a debate. We have
an obligation, more than anything, to make sure that the
integrity of our elections in a democracy is protected.''
This Committee can pick up where our colleagues in the
Senate Rules Committee left off, starting with the agency
before us today, the agency focused on helping America vote.
The EAC is under-resourced. The EAC operates with half the
staff and half the budget it had a decade ago. While resources
have decreased, demands on the agency have increased. EAC
funding has moved from a high of $25.1 million in fiscal year
2009 to a low of $9.2 million in fiscal year 2019. Similar
challenges exist with respect to staff resources. Where the EAC
had a staff of 49 in 2010, the 2019 staff numbers only 22, or
less than half the size of the 2010 staff.
We understand that you cannot be asked to do so much with
so few resources. However, our support for this agency means we
must also be fair and firm--accordingly, this oversight
hearing, the first in 8 years. We will raise some profound
challenges about the agency, and we expect forthright and
honest answers.
For this Committee to support the agency's request of
significantly increased resources, the witnesses before us must
demonstrate that they acknowledge problems with the Commission
that have been raised both publicly and privately.
This Committee can only champion increased support for this
agency if the agency holds up its end of the bargain. And that
will mean addressing severe personnel and management
challenges, righting the ship of what has appeared to be an
occasionally hyper-partisan and dysfunctional enterprise.
Commissioners must assure this Committee that increased support
will mean proper management, visionary leadership, and
effective and reliable technical expertise at the agency.
Together, we aim to protect America's most precious asset:
her democracy. We believe in the good-faith efforts and
intentions of all of you here as Committee members and
witnesses, and we will do our best to support you because of
the gravity of your charge. But this means that we will also
demand the best of you, just as the American people demand the
best of this Nation.
Our hope is that this oversight can provide a roadmap for
necessary improvements and the tremendous gains that could be
made by infusing the agency with new resources and new
personnel. Ultimately, it is our shared goal to discuss how to
fully equip this agency and to make sure you are prepared and
battle-ready for 2020.
I look forward to your comments, but before that, I would
recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis, for any comments he would like to make.
[The statement of the Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I
appreciate your willingness to hold these bipartisan hearings
on reviewing our current election practices with the aim of
helping our States to secure their elections.
Election security is one of the most important issues that
this Committee is tasked with, and I take the Committee's role
of ensuring fair and secure elections very seriously, as I know
you do too.
As we discussed in our hearing last week, we know that at
least 21 States were targeted by a foreign-state actor prior to
the 2016 U.S. election, and we know that Russia undertook a
misinformation campaign during the same election. But issues
surrounding our election infrastructure are not limited to
Russia, nor do they begin in 2016 or end in 2018.
I believe we must approach election security on three
fronts. First, we need to examine what we can learn and improve
upon from the past. Second, we must examine what new and
evolving challenges States are facing. Third, we need to
examine what role the Federal Government can and should play in
elections.
The Election Assistance Commission is critical to all of
these fronts, and I believe our commissioners will be able to
provide a tremendous amount of insight this afternoon.
This Committee was instrumental in the passage of the Help
America Vote Act in 2002, from which most of our Nation's
current election infrastructure can be traced. HAVA created the
EAC and the grant structure through which over $3 billion
passed between 2002 and 2010, and another $380 million
continues following last year's appropriation.
HAVA also tasked the EAC with the responsibility of
adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, developing
guidance to meet HAVA requirements, and serving as a central
source of information on election administration.
These services and others still being provided through the
EAC warrant review, and if we can improve or add to them, we
should. We must use this opportunity to ensure the Commission
has the resources needed to complete not only its original
mission from 2002 but also its new responsibilities undertaken
since the 2016 election.
Today, I want an honest assessment of what we have gotten
right and what we have gotten wrong over the last 17 years.
Also, where do we need to make improvements? And what do you
all need from us to help us better serve our States?
In examining what new and evolving challenges States are
facing, cybersecurity is clearly at the forefront. This is not
the only challenge, however, that our States face. The average
age of most voting equipment in the United States will soon be
measured in decades. The cost to recruit and train poll workers
remains high. And voter registration system maintenance remains
critical but costly.
As my good friend Senator Blunt pointed out to my home
State Senator last week during the Senate Rules EAC hearing,
voter fraud does exist, and we must ensure our States are
prepared against it. In examining how States have used and will
continue to use their 2018 HAVA funds, I hope to learn more
from our commissioners on the needs of our State and local
officials.
It is also important to hear directly from States on how
they are using Federal resources to overcome unique challenges
to their States and localities. Recently, my home State of
Illinois was able to invest in a new Cyber Navigator Program
that helps counties detect and defend themselves against
cybersecurity attacks.
I was able to hear more about this program just last week
during a bipartisan election security roundtable that I held in
my district. Local county officials graciously gave their time
to discuss the inner workings of their election system and
expressed their ideas to better secure their systems. I found
the discussion helpful and productive, and I hope to hold more
of these roundtables in the future as States continue to
enhance their security and their efforts to ensure every
American's vote is both counted and protected.
Lastly, I believe assisting States with the tools they need
to protect their election systems is the proper role for the
Federal Government. This must be balanced against the
constitutional duty for States to run and provide for their own
elections. I am not for the Federal Government mandating or
taking over State and local elections.
The EAC plays an immeasurable role in being the interface
between the Federal Government and our States. I not only want
to hear from our witnesses today on how that interface is
going, I also want to hear where we need to draw certain lines
to ensure our federalism remains.
As we move forward in our next steps to address election
security, we can make a bunch of partisan noise. We can do that
here today and blame one another for who should have done more
to protect our elections. Or we can make progress. I choose the
latter and encourage my colleague to join me in this approach.
We have a real opportunity to address a growing problem
that is causing Americans to lose confidence in their election
systems, but we must work together to make sure the progress in
keeping our Nation's election system secure and free from
inference is our number-one priority.
Thank you again to Madam Chairperson.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here to speak on
behalf of the EAC.
And I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all Members of the Committee may have
the opportunity to submit opening statements for the record.
The Chairperson. At this point, I would like to introduce
our witnesses, who are members of the Commission.
Chairwoman Christy McCormick has served on the EAC since
2014. She previously served as the Chairwoman for the 2015
term. Prior to her appointment to the EAC, she served as a
senior trial attorney in the Voting Rights Section of the Civil
Rights Division at the Department of Justice, a position she
held until joining the Commission.
She was detailed by the Deputy Attorney General to be the
senior attorney advisor and Acting Deputy Rule of Law
Coordinator in the Office of the Rule of Law Coordinator at the
U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, from 2009 to 2010, where she
worked as the U.S. elections expert overseeing the Iraqi
national elections.
Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Chairwoman
McCormick served as judicial clerk to the Honorable Elizabeth
A. McClanahan in the Court of Appeals from 2003 to 2006. She
was also an assistant to the Solicitor General of the Office of
Attorney General for Virginia from 2001 to 2003.
We welcome you, Madam Chairwoman.
We also have the Vice Chair of the Commission, Mr. Benjamin
Hovland, who was confirmed to serve on the EAC in January of
this year. He serves as the designated Federal officer for the
Technical Guidelines Development Committee.
Most recently, Vice Chair Hovland was the acting chief
counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, where he focused on election administration and
campaign finance regulations.
Earlier in his career, he was Deputy General Counsel for
the Missouri Secretary of State, where he focused on legal
issues related to the administration of State and Federal
elections, including recounts, poll-worker training, voter
registration list maintenance, statewide database matching,
voter education resources, and ballot initiative litigation.
As an attorney for the Fair Elections Legal Network, Vice
Chair Hovland focused on protecting Americans' access to the
ballot box, including litigation to stop efforts to purge
voters from the rolls based on inaccurate data matching in the
lead-up to the election.
Commissioner Thomas Hicks has served on the EAC since 2014
and has twice served as the Commission's chairman. He also
serves as the designated Federal officer for the EAC Board of
Advisors.
Prior to his appointment to the EAC, Commissioner Hicks
served as senior elections counsel and minority elections
counsel on this Committee, the Committee on House
Administration, a position he held from 2003 to 2014. He
covered issues here relating to campaign finance, election
reform, contested elections, and agency oversight.
Before joining the Committee staff, he was a senior
lobbyist and policy analyst for Common Cause. And earlier in
his career, he was a special assistant and legislative
assistant in the Office of Congressional Relations for the
Office of Personnel Management.
Last but certainly not least is Commissioner Donald Palmer,
who was confirmed to serve on the EAC in January of this year.
He is a former Bipartisan Policy Center fellow, where he
provided testimony to State legislatures on election
administration and voting reforms concerning election
modernization.
Commissioner Palmer was appointed secretary of the Virginia
Board of Elections by former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in
2011 and served as the Commonwealth's chief election officer
until 2014. He formerly served as the Florida Department of
State's Director of Elections from 2008 and the 2010 election
cycles.
Prior to his work in election administration, he served as
a trial attorney with the Voting Rights Section of the
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. He was a U.S.
Navy intelligence officer and judge advocate general, and he
was awarded the Navy Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy
Commendation Medal, and the Joint Service Commendation Medal.
Welcome to all of you. Your entire statements will be put
in the record, and we ask that you summarize in about five
minutes what you wish to tell us. When you get to one minute
left, the yellow light on the table will go on. We would ask
that you try and wrap up at that point.
I ask also unanimous consent that all Members will have
five days to revise and extend their remarks and have written
statements made part of the record.
So, with that, we will go to our witnesses.
And let's start with you, Chairwoman McCormick. Welcome.
Oh, you just have one statement? Okay. Well, that is fine,
and then we will go to questions from all the members.
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
The Chairperson. What about another microphone? Mr. Palmer
will give you his.
Mr. Raskin. Who is in charge of technology around here?
The Chairperson. Do any of them work? No.
If we speak without the microphones, will it be picked up
on the--are we rebooting?
They are trying to reboot the system. While they are doing
that, I will do some housekeeping matters.
We will adhere to the five-minute rule after we hear from
the Chairwoman of the Commission. But since you are speaking
for everyone, we will have a very gentle gavel, if that helps.
Does it work now?
Yeah, why don't we have you come sit up here? And we will
continue to try and reboot, so when we have questions everybody
can be heard.
Ms. McCormick. This is the short way to become a Member of
the House of Representatives.
The Chairperson. Welcome, Madam Chairwoman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTY MCCORMICK, COMMISSIONER AND
CHAIRWOMAN, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY THE
HON. BENJAMIN HOVLAND, COMMISSIONER AND VICE CHAIR, ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, THE HON. DON PALMER, COMMISSIONER,
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; AND THE HON. THOMAS HICKS,
COMMISSIONER, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Ms. McCormick. Good afternoon, Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking
Member Davis, 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.
We are pleased that a quorum of commissioners has been
reestablished at the EAC, and we are delighted to discuss the
Commission's work to fulfill its mission as prescribed by our
enabling legislation, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
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. But we are at a critical crossroads in regard
to having sufficient resources necessary to better support
State and local election administrators and the voters they
serve.
The EAC is the only Federal agency solely devoted to
supporting those officials in this work and helping America
vote. We are committed to maximizing our impact ahead of the
next Federal election and providing services that not only meet
but exceed the expectations of those who are counting on us to
do our job.
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 voter
registration databases, and other 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
communication 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 Subsector Government
Coordinating Council, or GCC, and played an integral role in
establishing the Sector Coordinating Council, SCC, compromised
of private election equipment manufacturers and vendors.
Beyond the GCC and SCC, the Commission has taken a
multifaceted 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 trainings
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.
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.
Last year, Members of Congress provided $380 million in
much-needed and much-appreciated financial support to the
States and territories through the EAC. We know from State
plans and expenditure reports that most States are spending
these funds on items that will directly improve election
security. In fact, at least 90 percent of the funds have been
devoted to cybersecurity improvements, the purchase of new
voting equipment, and improvements to voter registration
systems.
Through our most recent conversations with all 55 States
and territories that received these funds, we believe that as
of April 30, 2019, States have spent at least $108.14 million,
or 29 percent, of the $380 million in grant funds. States are
on a glide path to spending 85 percent of the funds on a
straight-line projection by 2020.
As States seek to invest these funds in purchasing new
voting equipment, elections leaders are continuing to turn to
the EAC's testing and certification program as a key resource
in ensuring the Nation's voting systems are tested to confirm
the secure and accurate tabulation of ballots.
This includes information on when the EAC will implement
the next iteration of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines,
which will be known as VVSG 2.0. The VVSG has historically
consisted of principles, guidelines, and requirements against
which voting systems can be tested to determine if the systems
meet required standards. These guidelines are voluntary, and
States may decide to adopt them entirely or in part.
Last year, the TGDC, as well as the EAC's Board of Advisors
and Standards Board, recommended adoption of the proposed VVSG
2.0 guidelines and principles. Unfortunately, when one of the
commissioners left the EAC, we lost our quorum and were not
able to vote to move the new guidelines forward.
That changed earlier this year when the Senate confirmed
our two new EAC commissioners. In February, after Commissioner
Palmer and Commissioner Hovland were confirmed, our first
official act was to unanimously vote to publish the VVSG 2.0
principles and guidelines in the Federal Register for a 90-day
public comment period.
Our first public hearing took place on April 10 in Memphis,
and we held our second public meeting in Salt Lake City on
April 23. Yesterday, we held our third hearing at our office in
Silver Spring. The public comment period on the VVSG 2.0
principles and guidelines concludes later this month on May 29.
While election security is a topic that is a priority for
all of us, election officials have support needs beyond
security. To demonstrate this, the EAC has developed a wheel of
competencies in which each section represents a similar level
of expertise and effort. This wheel represents the fundamental
roadmap of issues the EAC should address fully to meet the
vision of HAVA.
Today, the EAC lacks sufficient funding for the human
capital capacity to address all of these areas in depth. In
fact, the last time the EAC had a full slate of commissioners,
the Commission had 49 employees. Today, it has only 22, and our
budget is 50 percent less than it was in fiscal year 2010.
Without additional resources, we simply will not be able to
provide the breadth of support election officials need and
expect from the EAC to ensure secure, accessible, and efficient
elections.
With the reestablishment 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.
I am happy to answer any questions you have following
today's testimony. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. McCormick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
I think they are trying to set up an alternate microphone
system.
Mr. Hicks. It is working.
The Chairperson. Is it working?
Mr. Hicks. It should be working, yes.
The Chairperson. Ah, very good.
So now we can go to our members for questions, five minutes
apiece. And we will turn first to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Davis, for his questions.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, here we go with the
microphones.
Commissioner McCormick, I will start with you. Thank you. I
certainly wish many of our folks that testify together combined
their opening statements like that. That was great for time. I
really look forward to hearing the testimony from each and
every one of you with questions.
So, Ms. McCormick, you mentioned at the Senate hearing last
week that parts of the EAC's core mission have suffered with
the additional roles that the Commission has taken on since
2016. Can you first describe the transformation that the EAC
has undergone since late 2016 and, second, describe how your
core mission has suffered?
Ms. McCormick. Thank you for the question, Representative
Davis.
The EAC has undergone somewhat of a transition since a
quorum was reestablished in 2015. One of the commissioners' top
priorities was to right the posture of the agency and to work
on emphasizing our assistance mission to the State and local
election officials. Post-2016, the EAC has taken on an
additional, very important mission, and that is to support
election administrators to prepare for the escalating threat
dynamic that we now face in this country.
Election security has always been a top priority for
election officials. And when HAVA was passed, the current
environment was not envisioned, and the EAC did not have this
kind of a mission in regard to security as we do now.
We have stepped up and tried to fill that mission, although
we have had to stretch our employees to their breaking point in
order to meet the requirements that we feel are needed to
support the State and local election officials to help mitigate
the risks and prepare--to keep the secure infrastructure with
elections.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, Chairwoman McCormick, thank
you. I agree with your assessment that some things have
changed. And by all accounts, the Commission is doing what it
can to provide significant value to our States, not only in the
2018 midterm elections. I fully expect the Commission to work
effectively again in a bipartisan manner both internally and
with the States for the 2020 Presidential election.
I have some time left. Okay.
Chairwoman McCormick or Commissioner Palmer, is any method
of voting 100 percent secure?
Mr. Palmer. Well, the short answer is no. But there are a
variety of steps that both States and the EAC can do through
its certification program to mitigate those challenges.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay.
Can you describe the common voting machines in use across
the country today?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir. The majority is--about four different
types of systems are used. Basically, the paper optical-scan
voting system is used in the majority of precincts across the
country. You also have the ballot-marking devices with paper.
You also have DREs with VVPAT for a paper trail. And then you
have DREs in a minority of States that were used in 2018 that
have no paper trail with those DREs.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right.
We have heard a lot about paper ballots recently. Are paper
ballots necessarily more safe and secure than a DRE machine
with the voter-verified paper audit trail?
Mr. Palmer. Not necessarily, but the paper does provide
some alternative mechanism if there are disputes. If you need
to do an audit or recount, you have that paper that you could
then look at if there were some allegations of interference or
intrusion.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah. And you are right; they do
have their own challenges. I can remember in--I think it was
the 2012 Illinois primary, had a problem with ballots in one
county going through the optical scanner. The ballots were
printed too large, so they had to take a paper cutter and cut
them down to be able to get them to go through. So they do
present some challenges.
What other challenges do you think could be associated with
paper ballots?
Mr. Palmer. Well, paper ballots, particularly for--there is
the management of all the paper ballots that occurs. And for
many jurisdictions that have used DREs, there is a process by
which they have to become more acquainted with the paper and
sort of making sure there is ballot management so you don't
misplace or lose ballots and you make sure you have them all in
a secure manner.
Also, directly voting, hand to a ballot, sometimes has
issues, or it often does, with individuals with disabilities,
because they don't have that capability. So there may have to
be some sort of technology like a ballot-marking device or
certain DRE technology that allows a voter with a disability to
vote independently, privately, which is one of the charges
under the Help America Vote Act.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Right.
I see my time has run out. I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I would then turn to the gentleman from Maryland for his
questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Welcome to all of you. As the Congressman from the EAC in
Silver Spring, Maryland, I am delighted to see all of you here,
and I have very much enjoyed my visits there.
Mr. Hicks, thank you for showing me around when you were
the Chairman. I appreciate that.
Let's see. Chairwoman McCormick, let me ask you, the term
of the current Executive Director, Brian Newby, expires in
November. And, obviously, it is crucial that we get the next ED
in place quickly to guarantee a smooth transition and a fully
operational, functional EAC for the election. Given the search
for a new Executive Director could take a long time, presumably
we would want to start the process as soon as possible.
You were asked about this in the Rules Committee hearing on
the Senate side last week, whether you would commit to holding
a vote to allow the Board of Advisors and Standards Board to
begin searching, and you said you would consult with the legal
team to figure it out. Have you spoken with the legal team, and
what was the result of your conversation?
Ms. McCormick. Well, there is a process set out in HAVA,
and that is that we have to wait until there is a vacancy in
order to start the process of an executive search through the
two boards that we have executive search committees that would
be set up at that time. And that would mean that we would have
to wait until there is a vacancy.
Mr. Raskin. You mean you can't start the process of getting
ready? Like, I don't know, are you finding an outside firm to
do the search, or you can't put out the word now? Why is--I
don't understand.
Ms. McCormick. Well, that is under HAVA, and we are just--I
am following our governing statute----
Mr. Raskin. It says you can't do any preparatory----
Ms. McCormick. It says when there is a vacancy.
Mr. Raskin. Well, my----
Ms. McCormick. And, also, I think it is important for us to
have some continuity leading up to the 2020 Presidential
election. It is important for us to have a leadership team in
place. And if we wait until there is a vacancy, it will take us
a while to do that, putting us right smack dab in the middle of
an election year----
Mr. Raskin. Oh, so you--let me get it straight.
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. Meaning that we would change
the leadership----
Mr. Raskin. So, in other words----
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. And I am not comfortable with
changing the leadership.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. So you are not going to wait for
the vacancy to take place?
Ms. McCormick. No, I am. I am going to wait until the--I am
going to follow the process that HAVA sets out for us.
Mr. Raskin. My concern is, if you wait until November when
there is a vacancy and there are not three votes to retain Mr.
Newby or three votes to begin a search process, the Commission
will have to move to its succession plan, because, as I
understand it, Mr. Newby is not permitted to stay around in a
holdover status.
So, under the EAC's Organizational Management Policy
Statement of 2015, the agency has established an order of
succession in the event that there is nobody in the executive
director position. The first person in the order of succession
for the Executive Director is the general counsel, but his term
expires in November as well. Is that right?
Ms. McCormick. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. So the next person in the order of succession
is the chief operating officer, but that position is vacant
now, right?
Ms. McCormick. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. So, if there is no general counsel and no COO,
the next person in order of succession is the chief financial
officer. Is that position filled?
Ms. McCormick. That position is not filled. We do have a
different person with a different title doing our finances
right now.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Ms. McCormick. But you have to look at--the policy says
``when there are no commissioners.'' So that succession policy
would not be in effect in October because all the commissioners
will be there, presumptively.
Mr. Raskin. I am not sure that is the way I am reading it,
but I will go back and check that out.
But just to get it straight, so if there is no general
counsel, there is no COO, there is no CFO, the next person in
line to run the EAC would be the communications director. Is
that right under the----
Ms. McCormick. That is right under that policy. But, in my
opinion, that policy--I would have to check with our general
counsel, but that policy would not be in effect because we
still retain commissioners. So that succession policy goes into
effect when there are no commissioners, no executive director,
no general counsel.
Mr. Raskin. So what happens if there are commissioners,
under your reading of it?
Ms. McCormick. Well, then we would have to have either a
vote to retain the current leadership, or we maybe possibly
could put them in an acting status. I am not sure. We would
have to talk to general counsel about that.
Mr. Raskin. Well, you know, it just sounds like it is not
fully staffed up. And, again, my reading of it, admittedly
cursory, was that you would go down this line of succession;
you end up with the communications director as the possible
acting executive director of the Election Assistance Commission
going into the 2020 elections.
Do you view the current statutory formula as preventing you
from establishing a search committee now?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Raskin. Can you cite for me the part of it which you
think prevents----
Ms. McCormick. I don't have HAVA in front of me, but it
does say ``upon a vacancy'' or something of that nature.
Mr. Raskin. Right, but----
Ms. McCormick. We don't have a vacancy right now. And I am
confident that the commissioners can work in a bipartisan
manner to assure that we have continuity at this time with our
leadership and moving into the Presidential election in 2020.
Mr. Raskin. But, I mean, the term is up regardless, so
there would be a vacancy even if it is momentary, right? So you
do not view yourself as having to go through a search process
or to be prepared for a search process?
Ms. McCormick. I think we can--there is a number of steps
that come before that, and that is including deciding whether
or not we want to continue the term of the current leadership.
And if that is the case, that we don't continue the
leadership----
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. Then we will look to the
process.
Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks, would you weigh in on this, if you would? I
mean, is this the right way to proceed? I mean, for all I know,
it is, but it seems odd to me. I have not seen that before.
Mr. Hicks. The Chairwoman is correct, in that it states
that we can't start anything until there is a vacancy. I don't
think that prohibits the Board of Advisors or the Standards
Board from operating on their own accord to set up a committee
to start the search. That would also--we have to check with the
general counsel on that, but I don't think that that precludes
the start of a search by those two boards right now.
Mr. Raskin. Well, when----
Mr. Hicks. We don't have to tell them to do that, but they
can do that on their own, as they are our advisory boards.
Mr. Raskin. I see.
When you say ``consult with the general counsel,'' who are
you consulting with, given that there is no general counsel?
Mr. Hicks. We have a general counsel now.
Mr. Raskin. I see.
Mr. Hicks. So----
Mr. Raskin. Oh, okay.
Mr. Hicks. So that would----
Mr. Raskin. I gotcha.
Okay. I don't know whether any of the other commissioners
wanted to weigh in on this question. Or am I out of time?
I yield back, Madam Chairperson. Thank you.
The Chairperson. The gentleman--but we have a gentle gavel
today because we just had one opening statement.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Just to follow up on what Mr. Raskin was asking, it sounds
like, though, you are trying to follow the law in the way it--
even if the law is not advantageous to actually filling the
executive director's position. Is that true? Just trying to
follow.
Ms. McCormick. That is correct, sir. We are trying to
follow the HAVA process set out by Congress.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. I appreciate that. We don't always
see that in a lot of agencies, trying to follow the laws that
we pass.
Kind of a general question for everyone. Do you feel like
that the voluntary voting standards is one of the most
important functions of what you do?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
Ms. McCormick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hovland. Yes.
Mr. Hicks. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
And this could go to anyone that would like to do it. Could
you briefly just walk us through the development of the VVSG
2.0, how you get to the--I know you spoke about it briefly, but
what is the process of getting to actually getting this?
Mr. Palmer. So, Representative Loudermilk, I will try to
answer that.
So the process by which you would update or establish the
VVSG--in this case, it would be 2.0--is HAVA sets out a
process, once again that Congress has enacted, where the EAC
has advisory boards. You have the Technical Guidelines
Development Committee. You have the advisory board. You have
the Standards Board, which is made up of election officials.
TGDC is made up of technical experts and some State officials,
and the Board of Advisors, of stakeholders in the process. And
these three committees provide input and recommendations to the
EAC on what those new standards would be.
We do this in conjunction with NIST, the National Institute
of Science and Technology. They work with us; they work with
the boards. And these recommended standards are then provided
to the Executive Director for his recommendation to this board,
to us.
We have hearings on those to make sure that we are trying
to bring technology that--for the last 5 to 10 years, bring
those to the new standards so our voting systems are as secure
and as accessible as possible--usability, all those functions.
So that is the process that we are in right now with 2.0.
We are now engaged with the high-level standards. We are
looking at requirements and we are going to have public
hearings on these things. Eventually, we will vote, work with
the vendors to provide test assertions to which they can bring
their voting systems into our laboratories for testing, and
then provide those to the marketplace, to the election
officials, which voters would then vote on.
So that is really one of our major duties, and we take it
very seriously. It is very complicated and sometimes confusing,
even for us. But we have a lot of wealth of experience on the
Commission. We have a team that has been in place for a long
time. And we are hoping to bring this to fruition so we can
have new voting systems for 2024.
Mr. Loudermilk. When do you anticipate having 2.0 ready?
Mr. Palmer. Well, my hope is sometime in early 2020 or late
2019 that we could have enough in place--that is my goal, and I
think we can meet it--that the manufacturers know what our new
requirements are. So we have the high-level guidelines of what
the system should be, we have the requirements which those
systems will be tested to, and then we could have that
conversation with the laboratories and with our manufacturers,
to the vendors, so we can then bring those new voting systems--
in about 2 to 3 years, they will have new voting systems in the
marketplace.
My hope, realistically, is that election officials and
jurisdictions will be able to buy new equipment in 2022-2023--
--
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. So there are new voting systems
for some jurisdictions----
Mr. Loudermilk. You are talking about two to three years to
develop them once you get the standards out there?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. And, then, you are involved in the testing?
Mr. Palmer. We are. The EAC is involved with the testing of
those voting systems that the manufacturers bring in under
those standards. And so we are involved in that process.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you anticipate the new voting machines,
DREs with VVPAT, available under 2.0?
Mr. Palmer. Technically, it is probably possible. I don't
know--I think one manufacturer has considered building a new
DRE. But I don't--right now, most of the vendors now are with
ballot-marking devices or optical scan, digital scan of paper.
And so most of the new systems, if not all, will be paper-
based----
Mr. Loudermilk. Really.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Voting systems that come out of
2.0.
Mr. Loudermilk. Really.
Mr. Palmer. Well, there is a section of HAVA that does
require certain DRE technology----
Mr. Loudermilk. Yeah.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Under HAVA because of the focus on
accessibility for voters with disabilities.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right. And you mentioned that----
Mr. Palmer. Right.
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. In your questions. One of my
concerns is that the technology of the DRE does facilitate for
moving folks through a little faster in a lot of these, but it
does require more machines. So, anyhow.
All right. I see my time has expired. I yield back. Thank
you.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis, is recognized.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Thank you all for being here.
It sounds like it hasn't been easy lately, that it has been
tough being part of the Commission.
I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the $380
million of HAVA funds that--I guess with the grant expenditure
report, there were certainly a number of questions of whether
that should have been spent more quickly. But I also noticed
that the rest of that money should be spent on upgrades, up to
about 85 percent. I was just wondering about that. How does
that mesh with what you are hearing from the States and
localities?
Mr. Hovland. Thank you, Representative Davis.
Yes, the $380 million from fiscal year 2018 was very
welcome by the State and local election administrators. I think
what we saw in our initial report, that was based on fiscal
year 2018, and so was it was only through September 30, and so
you just saw a snapshot. But when you looked at that with the
State plans that were provided, you could see that States were
choosing from a menu of options.
Recently, our grants team reached out to all the States and
updated that number, so you can project trajectory that about
85 percent of the money will be spent in advance of 2020. And I
think that is really to be expected based on things like
procurement timelines for replacing equipment. Certainly, when
that money was distributed in 2018, there was a general
election around the corner, and so that limited what the
resources could be used for in advance of the election.
So, now, I think that we have seen this menu of options,
whether that is people upgrading their statewide voter
registration databases, hardening those systems with
multifactor authentication--the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, his
State has implemented the Cyber Navigators that he mentioned. I
think this is a great example of a State usage of money.
And so what we are hearing from State and locals is that
that $380 million was greatly appreciated, but it is an
investment. They are having to choose from that menu rather
than getting to do all of those things which they would like to
do to help secure our elections.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Thank you.
Does it kind of balance out, then? I mean, do you have a
sense sometimes that--or what you are seeing--that the needs
are so much greater than this, really? Even though you are
talking about up to 85 percent, is that--you know, it sounds
like--I am trying to figure out how you are going to run an
agency with 22 employees so that you have the people who are
able to facilitate this distribution. How do you do that?
Mr. Hovland. Well, I would say that is absolutely--that is
a separate issue but one that I welcome hearing about. Yes, the
reality--it was mentioned that our budget for this year was
$9.2 million. Actually, $1.25 million of that passes through to
NIST, so we are at $7.95 million. You know, again, we have 22
employees. We are a Federal agency with one legal counsel for
our agency, with one financial person for our agency.
I was very heartened in the opening statements to hear the
Chairperson talk about the fact that this Committee was no
longer considering the termination of our agency. And I welcome
this moment where we can move beyond whether or not to keep the
EAC and move into----
Mrs. Davis of California. Can I ask you----
Mr. Hovland [continuing]. Asking how we get better.
Mrs. Davis of California [continuing]. Where do you think
that capacity to act is most felt? Where are the needs the
greatest right now?
Mr. Hovland. Well, I think part of it is, you know, number
one, we need depth. We need to have more than one counsel,
frankly.
But, also, the impact of that decreased funding results in
programming. So when you have--election officials, particularly
at the local level, are tasked with an extremely difficult job.
And what we really do is help spread the best practices, help
them learn from their colleagues. Things like our clearinghouse
function and the ``clearies'' that we give out really embrace
federalism, to the Ranking Member's point earlier, and share
these best practices across States. And we aren't able to do
that as effectively----
Mrs. Davis of California. Right.
Mr. Hovland [continuing]. Because of our limited resources.
Mrs. Davis of California. And I will say, under the law,
under HAVA, that was your mission----
Mr. Hovland. Absolutely.
Mrs. Davis of California [continuing]. To make sure that
you could relay those practices and that people could have a
way of understanding where, in fact, they might be lagging
behind, even, in terms of reaching out to their electorate in
the areas.
All right. Thank you very much.
What would you like us to do?
Mr. Hicks. Give us more resources, plain and simple. I
think that is the number-one goal for the country in terms of
ensuring that--wherever I have gone, people have said: Thank
you for the downpayment of the $380 million, but we need
additional resources for the election for 2020, 2022, 2024, and
beyond.
I think that they want us to do more in terms of our IT
training, to work more with DHS. I think that there is a ton of
other things that--I am happy to talk with your staff for the
next hour and a half on things that we can use and need.
Mrs. Davis of California. Okay.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Let me just start with some basics.
The four of you are appointed for four-year terms--is that
correct?--and confirmed by the Senate. And you employ the
Executive Director for a four-year term.
Well, let me address it to you, Ms. McCormick. Is that
correct? The four of you, acting in collaboration with each
other, employ the Executive Director.
Ms. McCormick. Yes. We take recommendations from our
boards----
Mr. Butterfield. Sure.
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. And go through the interview
process. And then----
Mr. Butterfield. And your terms expire in November, and
your Executive Director's term expires in November. Is that
correct?
Ms. McCormick. My term has been expired for many years.
Mr. Butterfield. You are holding over.
Ms. McCormick. I am on a holdover.
Mr. Butterfield. You are holding over right now.
Is it correct to say that there is some controversy
surrounding your Executive Director, Mr. Newby, Brian Newby?
Would that be a fair statement?
Ms. McCormick. I don't think that is a fair statement. I
think----
Mr. Butterfield. You have not heard any----
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. That has been created. I think
that Mr. Newby is doing a fine job. And----
Mr. Butterfield. Are you aware of a----
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. I think the Commission has done
an amazing amount of work with the limited resources that it
has.
Mr. Butterfield. I understand.
Ms. McCormick. It is unfortunate that there are some people
who are attacking him, but----
Mr. Butterfield. Even in your agency, there are some people
who are very dissatisfied.
Ms. McCormick. There are some employees who are unhappy----
Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. But they have left the agency.
Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. From what I can understand, in 2017, there
was a 16-percent drop in support for senior leadership. Is that
an accurate survey? Sixteen-percent drop in 2017 for support
for senior leaders, and 23-percent drop in satisfaction
regarding your policies and practices, and a 27-percent drop in
another category.
You are not aware of this survey?
Ms. McCormick. I haven't read that survey, myself. I know
that there is an employee satisfaction survey that goes out
throughout the Federal Government, and, quite frankly, those
are not that bad compared to some other agencies across the
Federal Government.
Mr. Butterfield. When you get back to the office, if you
find this to be incorrect, I would need to know it, because I
don't need to repeat if it is not correct.
Are you telling me that you personally are satisfied with
the performance of Brian Newby?
Ms. McCormick. I am very confident in his abilities, and he
is doing a fine job for the agency.
Mr. Butterfield. And do you anticipate that he will be
retained as Executive Director?
Ms. McCormick. I hope so.
Mr. Butterfield. Legally, is that possible?
Ms. McCormick. I hope so.
Mr. Butterfield. And it would be a vote of three of you in
order to make that happen?
Ms. McCormick. I hope that is the case.
Mr. Butterfield. And if you had the will to do it or the
desire to do it, would you be legally capable of terminating
his position with the agency if you had just cause for doing
so?
Ms. McCormick. If we had just cause. Whenever you have just
cause, there is----
Mr. Butterfield. So you cannot assure us that there will be
a change in leadership in November at the Executive Director
level?
Ms. McCormick. I don't know what is going to happen.
Mr. Butterfield. Well----
Ms. McCormick. We are going to follow the process that HAVA
sets out, and I am hoping that we can work in bipartisan manner
to keep the continuity of our leadership through the----
Mr. Butterfield. But it will require three votes to retain
his leadership. Is that right?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, it does.
Mr. Butterfield. Yeah.
Are you saying that you feel that you do not have the
statutory authority to begin a search for a new leader if the
commissioners decides not to continue his leadership? You don't
have the statutory authority to do that?
Ms. McCormick. We have the statutory authority to do that
once there is a vacancy in that position, yes.
Mr. Butterfield. And you don't believe that you can
anticipate a vacancy.
Ms. McCormick. That is correct. We don't have a vacancy.
And the way HAVA is written, it says that an executive search
committee shall be set up in the boards once there is a
vacancy.
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
Mr. Hicks, do you have unconditional confidence in Brian
Newby as Executive Director?
Mr. Hicks. I think there have been some growing pains. I
think there are some good things that he has done; I think that
there are some bad things that he does done. But I think that
that is something that the Commission should look at, whether
or not we want to retain him and move forward or whether or not
we want to open this up for new, additional folks to apply for
the job.
We have two new commissioners who are here now who didn't
have the opportunity to vote on that. But I think opening it up
to whoever wants to apply for the job now--as the chair and
ranking member said earlier, that this was a different time,
that people were looking to get rid of the agency, and so I
think that there might be----
Mr. Butterfield. Are you aware of the employee survey in
2017 that I made reference to?
Mr. Hicks. I am aware of it. I have not read it.
Mr. Butterfield. It appears to me that there is low morale
in the agency, that so many of your employees have lost
confidence in your leadership. And I would ask that you look
very plainly at what that suggests.
Mr. Palmer, I will conclude with you. Are you totally
satisfied with your executive director, or do you think there
is room for improvement?
Mr. Palmer. I do have confidence in Executive Director
Newby. I am new to the agency, but I have also worked with the
agency, and many election officials at the local and State
level admire his leadership in the community and at the EAC.
Mr. Butterfield. But my question is, is there room for
improvement?
Mr. Palmer. Well, there is always room for improvement.
Mr. Butterfield. Yeah.
Mr. Palmer. But what I would say is that the EAC, going
back five to ten years, had a number of IG complaints of
discrimination and retaliation at the executive level. We have
not had--in the two to three years that I have seen of IG
reports under Mr. Newby's leadership, there haven't been any
complaints that have been brought to the level of the IG, which
is, you know, a fairly invasive investigatory--so the IG has
not had any complaints when it comes to retaliation or issues
regarding management.
Mr. Butterfield. During the Nixon years, there was
suggestion that there was a cancer growing on the Presidency. I
feel that there is a cancer growing on this Commission.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
And thank you all so much for being here.
Certainly, we want for every Federal agency, including
yours, to be above reproach and people not be concerned about
who runs it.
Let me just ask this question, Madam Chairperson. If you
had an employee who, in his recent history at an executive
level, had misused and mismanaged public funds, who had abused
his authority, who had engaged in an inappropriate relationship
with a subordinate, who displayed lewd behavior in the
workplace, what would you do with that employee?
Ms. McCormick. There are due process provisions in the
Federal Government. And so we have had those situations at the
EAC in the past. We had an employee who misused Federal funds
and violated the law. And we were told that there was a due
process that we had to follow----
Ms. Fudge. And what happened to that employee?
Ms. McCormick. That employee was retained, actually, and
eventually retired from the agency.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. But do you not have such an employee now?
Ms. McCormick. I am not aware of an employee who is
behaving that way, no.
Ms. Fudge. Well, let me make sure that I send this to you,
because those are the accusations against Mr. Newby from his
former employee just a few months after you hired him. So I
will make sure you have that information.
I think it is important to be upfront about what we are
dealing with. And the one thing that I cannot say enough is
that, when we are using taxpayers' dollars, we need to have the
highest standards. And I clearly don't think that that is the
case here.
Mr. Hicks, can you give me any information as to what you
have learned from the EAC State funding plans that have been
received?
Or the Chairwoman. Either one.
Mr. Hicks. Thank you for the question.
I think that some of the things that we have learned from
the State funding plans, in terms of the $380 million that went
out, is that States need additional funds, that they are
looking to purchase partial voting equipment because they don't
have enough money to fully fund for voting equipment overall.
I think 95 percent of the money is going towards three
different things: either voting equipment, voter registration,
or cybersecurity upgrades. But I think that, overall, what we
have learned is that they basically need additional funding.
Ms. Fudge. How much funding do you think they need?
Mr. Hicks. I knew that was coming. As elections happen
every 2 years, I think that it depends. Because what is needed
in Maine might not be what is needed in Ohio.
Ms. Fudge. Right. But just in light of the troubles that we
have had over the last few elections--Mr. Davis is right, it
didn't start in 2016, but it is getting worse. It is not
getting better.
So even though this is not the first occurrence of
interference by Russia, and maybe they are now saying possibly
China and others, what is the most pressing need for States
right now in terms of the security of their equipment?
And maybe I need to go down to Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Well, with regard to the most pressing need for
security, you might think the answer would be voting systems,
but I actually believe that voter registration systems at the
State and local level are the most pressing need for upgrade.
And so--I will just leave it at that. I think that is our most
vulnerable aspect of what cyber intrusions are, and so I
believe those two areas would be the most pressing need.
Ms. Fudge. Okay.
I am going to close, Madam Chairperson, but I will just say
this. When there is no confidence in the leadership of the
department, you get reports like you just saw, with morale low,
people not believing in their leadership. Those are the things
that happen.
I would suggest very, very strongly that--I will make sure
that you get it--that you read it and then still decide if that
is the proper leadership for this organization.
I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much.
The question to start with is for Ms. McCormick.
Have you worked with the Department of Homeland Security to
understand and respond to threats after foreign interference in
the 2016 election?
Ms. McCormick. We have been working with the Department of
Homeland Security since before the 2016 Presidential election
and providing information to the State and local election
officials on escalating threats over the years, yes.
Mr. Walker. If we could unpack that a little bit more, what
initiatives or guidelines does the EAC specifically have to
address election network hacking or voter data manipulation?
Ms. McCormick. We have a multifaceted approach to providing
the States with the resources that they need. We provide
trainings, we provide checklists, resources, white papers. We
are available at any time to discuss issues with the States and
locals with regard to their election security. We have
partnered with DHS and other agencies on products that the
States and locals can use to secure their infrastructure.
Mr. Walker. Obviously, this is going to be a big topic of
discussion going into the 2020 election as well as future
elections. What initiatives would you like to see the EAC take
to ensure our voting systems are strong and secure?
Ms. McCormick. Well, if we had the resources, I think we
would like to see some cyber assistance units out amongst the
States that we can have available to the State and local
election officials to call on to help them with securing and
mitigating any risks that are out there.
Mr. Walker. Anything in the hopper to deal specifically
with foreign interference when it comes to false information or
misrepresentation?
Ms. McCormick. Well, social media is not in our bailiwick
actually. That is not part of our mission. I think that there
are some ideas out there that we can discuss, perhaps providing
a toolkit to State and local election officials to provide to
campaigns when they register to become, you know, candidates on
the issues and what they can do to secure their systems as
well.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
If I could get just a quick ``yes'' or ``no'' coming across
the panel, starting, left to right, with the Honorable Donald
Palmer. Do you agree that States need play a significant role
in funding their election equipment?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, I do believe there should be a
partnership.
Mr. Walker. Okay.
Ms. McCormick.
Ms. McCormick. Yes, I do.
Mr. Walker. Sir?
Mr. Hovland. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Okay.
Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks. Yes, I believe that----
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks [continuing]. Show that.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Thank you.
Regarding the 2018 appropriation to date, how much of that
money has been distributed to the States, and how much of that
has been spent by the States? Does anybody want to take a stab
at that, or does anybody have a knowledge base? I don't want to
put anybody on the spot unless you have had a chance to----
Mr. Hicks. Well, 100 percent has been distributed out to
the States.
Mr. Walker. Okay. One hundred percent.
Mr. Hicks. Right. We got that money out last year.
Mr. Walker. Okay. And that money is being spent on this
arena that we are talking----
Mr. Hicks. Cybersecurity issues, purchasing new voting
equipment, and voter registration are the three main ones that
I believe States have done. But they are also going to other
aspects of it as well.
Mr. Walker. I am out of questions, but I am going to come
up with a few more, because I just want to hear that baritone
voice by Mr. Thomas Hicks speak a little bit longer there. So
that is ``Lou Rawls, eat your heart out'' right there.
Okay. I will yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I am wondering, for each commissioner, do you think there
would be value for the EAC to add a division that is simply
dedicated to technological election security?
Ms. McCormick. I think that is an idea that we could look
at. I think that we have a pretty robust testing and
certification program and an IT division, and I probably would
think that we would fold it into that department, if we did
something like that.
The Chairperson. Well, I guess that goes to my next
question. I know you can't always believe what you read in the
paper, but I did see a Politico article recently discussing the
departure of Mr. Ryan Macias. And the article said that--well,
actually, the title of it is ``EAC Losing Key Expert Reflects
Crisis at Commission.'' And the article discussed Director
Newby's leadership as part of a generally poor leadership and
that, quote, ``they've drained so much technical expertise''
when Mr. Macias left.
I understand that, shortly thereafter, you announced, Madam
Chairwoman, that an individual, Jerome Lovato, had been
appointed as the new testing and certification director. Can
you describe the process by which Mr. Lovato was hired? Was
there an open call for applications? Did he apply? How many
other people applied?
Ms. McCormick. The commissioners don't involve themselves
in personnel matters, so----
The Chairperson. So how did he get that appointment?
Ms. McCormick [continuing]. That is a decision of the
Executive Director. And, yes, the job was posted. They received
many applications. I believe Mr. Macias was one of the
applicants as well. Obviously, he did not get the job, and Mr.
Lovato did get the job.
The Chairperson. Okay. So it is my understanding--and
correct me if I am incorrect--that this certification and
testing program has absorbed several new responsibilities. I am
wondering, will Mr. Lovato be conducting his work from his
residence in Colorado, or is he moving here?
Ms. McCormick. He is already an employee of the EAC, and he
is going to be moving back and forth between Colorado and the
EAC's headquarters in Silver Spring. He will be located next to
one of our testing labs, very close to one of our testing
labs----
The Chairperson. In Colorado?
Ms. McCormick. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairperson. Is there a SCIF there?
Ms. McCormick. I believe there is a SCIF that is available
to him, yes.
The Chairperson. I would love to know that, if you are not
positive on this.
Ms. McCormick. Well, he would probably use whatever the
State of Colorado uses. He used to work----
The Chairperson. Well, that is not good enough. We need to
meet our standards.
Ms. McCormick. Well, we don't have a SCIF at our
headquarters either.
The Chairperson. Really? That is disturbing.
Ms. McCormick. In fact, Madam Chairperson, we just recently
were given clearances, interim clearances, a couple of weeks
ago, actually, not long ago. So we have been without--and it is
at the Secret level as opposed to the Top Secret level.
We have not had clearances for the two and a half years
that we have been asking for them. We have finally been able to
get those interim clearances, and hopefully they will become
permanent clearances but it is an issue, and we are working on
it with Homeland Security.
The Chairperson. I am advised--and I don't know that this--
you will correct me if I have been advised incorrectly--that
one of the individuals that has been hired to serve in
certification currently serves as a director of certification
at Dominion, which is a very large vendor of voting machines,
and that after the announcement of this individual's hire, she
actually was still meeting representing Dominion and will start
at the EAC in the same month as leaving her post in Dominion.
I am wondering--usually, there is a cooling--if we leave
the Congress, there is a cooling-off period for a year. Is
there concern about a cooling-off period, the appearance of a
conflict of interest in this hire? Were those considerations in
the mind of the agency when this person was hired? And what
steps will you take to make sure that people don't favor one
company or another because of their prior employment?
Mr. Palmer. Sure, Madam Chairperson. There is an ethics--
ethics officer and the general counsel. And as employees either
come to the EAC or leave the EAC, they are briefed on their
ethical requirements on taking a taking a position at the EAC
in testing and certification.
And so the employee that you are speaking about, although
we didn't hire her, she is a certification director for one of
the vendors. She has worked with certification in the States
and at the Federal level and brings a lot of assets to the
Election Assistance Commission.
The Chairperson. Well, I don't even know this person. I am
not attacking her qualifications----
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
The Chairperson [continuing]. In any way. The point I am
trying to make is, if you have somebody who is representing a
company at the same time, you know--and then they are moving
over to the agency that is regulating that company, it causes
people to question, you know, the dispassionate nature of the
agency.
Mr. Palmer. Right. So there is an ethics office. And the
individual won't be working with that vendor's testing program.
The Chairperson. That is not the point. I mean, if she is
testing other--well, I think I have made my point, and I can
see that my time has also expired.
And other Members have been very good about staying within
their five minutes, so I will stop now and thank the
commissioners for being here and note that the record will be
open for 5 days. If Members have additional questions, they
could submit them for the record. We would ask the Commission,
if that should occur, to answer them promptly.
The Chairperson. We do thank you for being here.
And unless there are further matters before this Committee,
we are adjourned, without objection with, thanks to each of
you.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]