Yes, and anyone who thinks that EAC is only relevant for the
administration of HAVA funds hasn't paid much attention to 85% of what
they've been doing in the past few years. They now have a slew of
programs intended to help election administrators better cope with the
spectre of computerized voting systems, which can do strange things
but hold great promise for efficiency, verifiability, usability,
accessibility, etc. The EAC's voting system certification program is
a good example of a program that had a rocky start but is now getting
better and better all the time (critics say it's slow and expensive...
it sure is, but it's hard to imagine an alternative structure that
would do this work better, faster, cheaper... and nothing is certainly
not a good idea). best, Joe
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke@gmail.com> wrote:
I've expressed frustrations at times with the EAC, and from a purely intellectual perspective, wondered whether the agency was designed to fail. (I remember in a conference at Brooking/AEI a few years ago, we had a spirited discussion with Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein about the early years of the Federal Election Commission and how it compared to the EAC. I still wonder whether the authors of HAVA had failure in mind)
However, I can't echo Rick's sentiments that no one would miss the agency. American election administration has improved dramatically since 2000, and Federal requirements for the use of HAVA funds, administered by the EAC, should receive a lot of credit. Perhaps the agency would not be missed when HAVA funds run out, but let's not understate the impact of HAVA and the agency's role in administering and overseeing these funds.
I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions about the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines, but the impression that the VVSG, while slow, has provided a set of regulatory guidelines and technical specifications that has helped guide the states when adopting new election technology. It would surely be missed if the VVSG was no longer updated, and states and local jurisdictions were once again completely on their own. This seems particularly important in a period when the election technology industry is in a state of great uncertainty.
Finally, from my own perch as a political scientist, it would be a tremendous loss if the Election Administration and Election Day Survey, which has finally stabilized and is being used to great advantage by advocates, analysts, and increasingly academics, were to disappear. Yes, there have been serious bumps in the road in developing and administering this instrument, but recall prior to the EAC's survey, there was no single source for information on a wide array of information about the performance and administration of American elections. I would hate to go backwards and once again have 50 states and 10,000 jurisdictions reporting information with different details, using different terms, and with differing levels of accuracy.
I would hope that Congress would continue to fund this instrument regardless of what happens to the EAC.
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Professor, Reed College
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
Portland OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
On Dec 17, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Will the EAC Disappear?
Could be.
Follow up question: who will notice?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:28 PM
Allison Hayward Makes a Campaign Finance Cartoon
Here.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:58 PM
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
Portland OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law