EPEC NEWS

From EPEC Team Newsletter:

If the past five years have taught election integrity groups from both ends of the political spectrum anything, it is this:

Machines and equipment used in United States elections are in need of a quantum leap forward in security features.

The vehicle for assisting states and vendors with security standards, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), is also in need of a quantum leap forward to help states and territories get there.

That’s the view expressed by election integrity experts, as well as EPEC Team analysis after reviewing current standards that are applied to election systems in the United States, many of which are voluntary.

With key deadlines approaching in President Trump’s recent Executive Order on election integrity and securing election systems, the EAC’s standards bodies have an opportunity to help states actually meet the current Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG), known as “VVSG 2.0.”

Right now, not one vendor currently operating in the United States is believed to be certified to the “VVSG 2.0” standard for securing election machines. Most are still being certified to the outdated “VVSG 1.1” standard.

It was approved in 2021 and set for testing in 2022.

Still Certifying to Outdated Standards

As the EAC’s website explains:

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) are a set of specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they meet required standards.

Some factors examined under these tests include basic functionality, accessibility, and security capabilities. While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates the EAC to develop and maintain these requirements, adhering to the VVSG is voluntary except in select states where it is required by their own state law.

Consistent election systems were among the drivers of the HAVA statute in 2002 after the “hanging chad” controversy and litigation over the 2000 presidential election.

Although “VVSG 2.0” is voluntary, the standard serves as a benchmark for vendors, as well as states who oversee their elections.

They were developed with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), among other industry working groups.

Many states and territories claim that adopting improved systems is a cost issue — despite grants that are provided to help them upgrade.

The other problem that technology professionals cite is just plain inertia that can creep into an organization when the least standard of security is allowed.

It is analogous to offering certification to Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system, (no longer officially supported) alongside more recent versions of Windows 10 and 11. It is also analogous to Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs who was legendary for demanding that users upgrade to the latest Apple operating system — or their apps would stop working.

President Trump’s Executive Order on election integrity is on the agenda when the EAC’s Standards Board gathers for its annual meeting in Charlotte, N.C. on April 24-25th.

The meeting will not be live-streamed, but written comments are still being accepted:

The EAC will only accept written comments and questions from members of the public. If you would like to participate, please email clearinghouse@eac.gov with your full name and question or comment no later than 5 p.m. ET on April 23, 2025.

Get Ready for “VVSG 2.0-Plus”

Key sections of the EAC standards board agenda are likely to address Sections 4, and 7 (b) of the EO.

For example, Section 4 (b)(i) reads:

The Election Assistance Commission shall initiate appropriate action to amend the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 and issue other appropriate guidance establishing standards for voting systems to protect election integrity.

The amended guidelines and other guidance shall provide that voting systems should not use a ballot in which a vote is contained within a barcode or quick-response code in the vote counting process except where necessary to accommodate individuals with disabilities and should provide a voter-verifiable paper record to prevent fraud or mistake.

This section refers to states such as Georgia, and South Carolina that use Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines, which do not produce a verifiable record of the voter’s choices.

Georgia’s long-running federal lawsuit over the use of “QR” codes to store a voter’s choice — which the human eye cannot read, was recently dismissed after a federal judge sat on the case for years.

The issue has not subsided, however, over critical questions of security of “touch-screen” voting, and whether a QR code with no paper ballot is actually a “vote.”

Many states use touch-screens for disabled voters who are not able to mark a ballot. But few beyond Georgia and South Carolina use them statewide.

The world’s leading technology and security experts have long warned Georgia and other states of the inherent security flaws in using “touch-screens” and only “QR” codes to store votes; tampering with these machines is nearly impossible to detect. Plus the voter cannot verify their choices with the human eye.

The systems raise important questions: Is a QR code system actually providing a ballot as required under election statutes?

The yellow-shaded areas of the map below, courtesy of VerifiedVoting.org, show how many states and counties currently use “touch-screen”voting machines.

Another section from the election-security EO, Section 7 (b), says:

Consistent with 52 U.S.C. 21001(b) and other applicable law, the Election Assistance Commission shall condition any available funding to a State on that State’s compliance with the requirement in 52 U.S.C. 21081(a)(6) that each State adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards within that State that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote, including that, as prescribed in 2 U.S.C. 7 and 3 U.S.C. 1, there be a uniform and nondiscriminatory ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting, excluding ballots cast in accordance with 52 U.S.C. 20301 et seq., after which no additional votes may be cast.

In addition, the EO sets forth a deadline of April 25th to update the national voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

(The House has passed H.R. 22, a bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship, which is a requirement for voting in United States elections.)

It says:

The Election Assistance Commission shall, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 21003(b)(3)and 21142(c) and consistent with applicable law, take all appropriate action to cease providing Federal funds to States that do not comply with the Federal laws set forth in 52 U.S.C. 21145, including the requirement in 52 U.S.C. 20505(a)(1) that States accept and use the national mail voter registration form issued pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 20508(a)(1), including any requirement for documentary proof of United States citizenship adopted pursuant to section 2(a)(ii) of this order.

Lawsuits, Too

Although leftwing groups have sued over the election integrity EO, claiming that disabled people will be disadvantated or that it is unconstitutional, the plain text is clear on accomodating individuals with disabilities.

Leftwing nonprofit news organization VoteBeat is covering leftwing groups that have sued to stop President Trump’s EO.

A federal judge said she planned to rule by April 24 on a request to stop parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order on elections from being enforced or implemented.

So far, 19 Democrat state officials have brought suit against the EO.

The EAC has an opportunity to lead all 55 states and territories that make up the standards board. Working groups are already looking at election system supply chains, components, networking standards, and usability to help deliver election systems that reflect best practices — and ensure full access to balloting.

Congress is also working on potential upgrades to federal statute as part of its budget resolution, especially as chips, software, and motherboards are put under a supply chain spotlight amid tariff negotiations between the United States and trading partners, including China’s communist regime.

The Trump administration has issued an EO that directs compliance with current standards of safety and security, and cites specific statutes it intends to enforce.

Already, working groups are formulating a “VVSG 3.0” standard, while the EAC is still helping states use the “VVSG 1.1” standard.

The EAC and its standards board have some work to do to help more states and territories comply with current security standards. So do election integrity groups who have been calling for reform for years. #