53414346.

doc Page 1 of 2

Updated Feb. 28, 2008 – 12:48 p.m.

Lawmakers Question Election Board

Members
By Phil Mattingly, CQ Staff

Members of the Election Assistance Committee again faced hard questions

Wednesday from lawmakers concerned they were not doing enough to solve
recurring voting problems.
The bipartisan commission, created by Congress after the turmoil of the 2000
presidential election (PL 107-252), was initially expected to hand out federal grants,
conduct studies, certify voting machines and promote voting practices that seem to
work well. It was not expected to be a regulatory agency.
But members of the House Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee, saying they were concerned about potential problems
from a record number of voters expected in November, demanded a more aggressive
approach from the panel.
“Very, very passive. Very, very relaxed. Not with any intentions to bring about
corrections,” was how an exasperated Maurice D. Hinchey , D-N.Y., described the
commission’s way of doing business.
Commission members argued they lacked the authority to control the actions of each
state and county election board.
“The expectations that we can insert ourselves into areas where the legislation
doesn’t allow it is something that I’ve encountered quite a bit,” said commission
Chairwoman Rosemary Rodriguez. “Everybody thinks that we can just solve all of the
problems.”
Local officials have opposed turning the commission into a regulatory agency. The
National Association of Secretaries of State called for the commission to be abolished
after the 2006 election.
“You have the bully pulpit,” subcommittee Chairman Jose E. Serrano, D-N.Y., told
commission members. “Use it. You’re a small agency that is probably going to
become one of the most important agencies in our government because you have, in
your hands, the ability to tell the country how to conduct fair and accurate elections.”
Congress has given the commission $3 billion over the past five years in grant money
for states to improve their voting systems.
The commission’s fiscal 2008 operating budget was $16.5 million, and the Bush
administration has requested $17 million for fiscal 2009.
But this wasn’t the first time members of Congress have stated their displeasure with
the commission’s business practices. They have questioned and requested hearings
on the commission’s handling of appropriated funds. Members have also questioned
the Justice Department’s involvement in the commission’s decision-making process.
53414346.doc Page 2 of 2

During Wednesday’s hearing, Democratic members again complained about the

commission’s actions in delaying the release – and then extensively editing – its 2007
report from a study on voter fraud.
“I’m really not sure how you expect the American people and this committee to give
you those millions of dollars when you decided to make a report that should not have
been politicized a totally political document,” said Debbie Wasserman Schultz , D-Fla.
An inspector general’s report on the handling of the study is expected sometime this
month. Rodriguez said the report will clear up many of the questions regarding
commission wrongdoing.
“Unfortunately, we thought this was possible,” Rodriguez said after the hearing of the
hard line of questioning. “Until we get the inspector general report, I think these
questions are going to linger.”