U.S. Election Assistance Commission Activities Spark Need for Congressional Oversight
Key findings
- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is using the Help America Vote College Program (HAVCP) to distribute grants disproportionately to left-wing groups and has been previously described as an effort “to target Democrat voters.”
- In allocating funds to partisan entities, EAC is likely acting contrary to federal law.
- EAC is stonewalling and delaying requests for transparency until after the November elections.
- EAC has failed to articulate which entities applied for HAVCP grants and why certain entities were denied.
- Congress has an opportunity to exert oversight authority to infuse transparency and accountability into the process.
Introduction
Title V of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) established the Help America Vote College Program (HAVCP).[i] HAVCP was created “to encourage students enrolled at institutions of higher education (including community colleges) to assist State and local governments in the administration of elections by serving as nonpartisan poll workers or assistants; and to encourage State and local governments to use the services of the students participating in the Program.”[ii] While the program was created for a host of activities, “including developing materials, sponsoring seminars and workshops, producing advertisements directed at students, and awarding grants,” EAC almost exclusively uses appropriated funds for grantmaking.[iii] Since the inception of the HAVCP, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has distributed more than $4 million in grants to 110 recipients.[iv]–[v]
Under the FY 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the EAC received $1 million in additional appropriations for HAVCP.[vi] Grant applicants were invited to apply for the two-year HAVCP Poll Worker Program or a new, one-year Service Day Mini-Grant Program.[vii] On February 8, 2024, EAC published the 2023 HAVCP awardees and their corresponding funding levels.[viii] Grant recipients include several government and election administration offices, as well as left-leaning entities and jurisdictions.[ix] While the HAVCP is designated for institutions of higher education, roughly one-third of the 2023 HAVCP grants went to government offices.[x] This is a departure from tradition and it raises questions about whether the grants might be used to supplant established expenditures or have been accepted without the state’s approval.[xi]
Furthermore, left-leaning entities and jurisdictions were awarded grants in disproportional amounts. More than 80 percent of awardees are in jurisdictions that voted for President Biden during the 2020 election.[xii] In addition, a chapter of the League of Women Voters received grant funding despite their well-known support for left-of-center candidates and policies and lawsuits against election integrity efforts in red states.[xiii]–[xiv]–[xv] This is a clear violation of Section 501(b), which states that “the Commission shall ensure that the funds provided are spent for projects and activities which are carried out without partisan bias or without promoting any particular point of view regarding any issue, and that each recipient is governed in a balanced manner which does not reflect any partisan bias.”[xvi]
The HAVCP has a history of questionable grant-making and lacks transparency
Concerns regarding EAC’s handling of HAVCP funds are driven by a lack of transparency. Under Section 202 of HAVA, EAC is mandated to function as a national clearinghouse of information, ensuring that data is readily available to stakeholders and the public.[xvii]
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EAC in February 2024 seeking information on HAVCP applicants. After initially suggesting the request should be straightforward, EAC later indicated that this simple request would not be completed until March 2025, citing a high volume of requests that have significantly affected processing times. Notably, in addition to being more than a year after the FOIA request was issued, this projected date is after the November election. Hiding behind the excuse of “a high volume of requests” delays much-needed scrutiny until after the election and FY2025 appropriations decisions. EAC’s failure to provide sufficient information in a timely manner highlights the need for improved transparency and responsiveness.
Before the FOIA request, EAC’s website neglected to include grant recipients and funding levels for 2004 and 2006. Importantly, this oversight obfuscated EAC’s history of questionable grant-making. For example, in 2006, EAC provided two grants, $16,875 each, to Project Vote, an advocacy organization that engages in voter registration drives.[xviii] An Office of Inspector General report found that Project Vote contracted with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)—the radical leftist get-out-the-vote group that shut down after failing to carry out its grant work.[xix]
Thanks to FGA’s FOIA request, EAC now publishes grant awardees and award amounts for all years; however, EAC still does not disclose the list of grant applicants. Since the HAVCP was launched, less than one-third of applicants have been awarded grants.[xx]–[xxi] Section 502(c) states EAC “shall make all necessary materials and other assistance (including materials and assistance to enable the institution to hold workshops and poll worker training sessions) available without charge to any institution which desires to participate in the Program.”[xxii] This indicates that EAC should not deny any higher education institution from the program so long as their proposed usage of funds complies with Section 502(b).[xxiii] Without transparency, the public is left in the dark about which applicants were denied funding—and why. More importantly, it hides knowledge of which institutions of higher education were denied grants in favor of government offices and left-wing voter outreach programs.
Oversight matters for future appropriations considerations
EAC has previously expressed its desire to continue the HAVCP and is even building out plans for more comprehensive programs that far exceed the scope of encouraging college-level engagement in civics.
For example, in its FY2024 budget request, EAC requested an appropriation of $3.7 million for HAVCP—nearly four times the amount allotted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.[xxiv] Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that “the Help America Vote College Poll Worker Program … is known to target Democrat voters” when it denied funding for the program in FY2024.[xxv] But the scope of that tendency should be spelled out so that future Congresses are aware of the danger. Program transparency, including the full list of grant applicants and application and decision materials, would meet that need.
For its FY2025 budget request, EAC has asked Congress for $96 million to set up a new Election Innovation Grants program.[xxvi] This program has a new name, but the threat is the same, only larger. It would also be a massive federal invasion of state elections. Answers to specific questions about EAC’s misuse of HAVCP funds would provide lawmakers with the information they need to push back against this appropriations request.
Opportunities for oversight
Congressional intervention would fill information gaps. Congress has several tools to ensure proper oversight of EAC’s management and allocation of HAVCP appropriations. Members could issue letters requesting that EAC make public information currently hidden behind bureaucratic processes, including the full list of applicants and their application materials from each grant year. Similarly, the committees of jurisdiction could initiate an investigation and hold hearings soliciting testimony from EAC and require the disclosure of these documents.
While not included in the legislative text of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the Committee Print did provide instructions that “[w]ithin 45 days of enactment of this ACT, EAC and [National Institute of Standards and Technology] shall submit to the Committees an expenditure plan for the funds that includes … an explanation of expenditures, including contracts and grants…”[xxvii] An explicit expenditure plan is not readily available on the EAC website and annual planning documents are sparse on details. Congress should call on EAC to honor the instructions in the Committee Print.
Oversight and transparency are particularly necessary in an election year. The grants awarded in February could influence the upcoming November election. Ensuring transparency and adherence to legislative intent in the distribution of election-related grants is critical for maintaining public trust in our electoral systems.
[i] H.R. 3295 (2002), https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3295/text/.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Congressional Research Service, “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Overview and selected issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45770.
[iv] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Strengthening the electoral system one grant at a time: A retrospective of grants awarded by EAC April 2003—December 2010,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2010), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/FY2010_Grants_Report_FINAL.pdf.
[v] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission announces recipients of Help America Vote College Program Grants,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/news/2024/02/08/us-election-assistance-commission-announces-recipients-help-america-vote-college.
[vi] H.R. 2617 (2023), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2617/text.
[vii] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Help America Vote College Program,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/grants/help-america-vote-college-program.
[viii] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission Announces Recipients of Help America Vote College Program Grants,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/news/2024/02/08/us-election-assistance-commission-announces-recipients-help-america-vote-college.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Funding advisory opinion FAO-08-012,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2008), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/FAO-08-012_NY_1.pdf.
[xii] Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by state and local election offices in Arizona, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
[xiii] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission Announces Recipients of Help America Vote College Program Grants,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/news/2024/02/08/us-election-assistance-commission-announces-recipients-help-america-vote-college.
[xiv] League of Women Voters, “League of Women Voters of Florida v. Lee (now League of Women Voters of Florida v. Byrd),” League of Women Voters (2024), https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/league-women-voters-florida-v-lee-now-league-women-voters-florida-v-byrd
[xv] League of Women Voters, “League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose (HB 458 challenge),” League of Women Voters (2023), https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/league-women-voters-ohio-v-larose-hb-458-challenge.
[xvi] H.R. 3295 (2002), https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3295/text/.
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Project Vote, “About: Making democracy work for everyone,” Project Vote (2024), https://www.projectvote.org/about/.
[xix] Office of Inspector General, “Administration of grant funds received under the Help America Vote College Program by Project Vote,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2010), https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/EAC/Project-Vote-Report-report-accessible.pdf.
[xx] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Strengthening the electoral system one grant at a time: A retrospective of grants awarded by EAC April 2003—December 2010,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2010), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/FY2010_Grants_Report_FINAL.pdf.
[xxi] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “U.S. Election Assistance Commission announces recipients of Help America Vote College Program Grants,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/news/2024/02/08/us-election-assistance-commission-announces-recipients-help-america-vote-college.
[xxii] H.R. 3295 (2002), https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3295/text/.
[xxiii] Ibid.
[xxiv] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Fiscal Year 2024: Congressional budget justification,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2023), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/EAC_2023_AFR_111523_508.pdf.
[xxv] Appropriations, House Republicans, “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” U.S. House of Representatives (2024), https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/second-fy24-package-further-consolidated-appropriations-act-2024.pdf.
[xxvi] U.S. Election Assistance Commission, “Fiscal Year 2025: Congressional budget justification,” U.S. Election Assistance Commission (2024), https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/US_EAC_FY_2025_Congressional_Budget_Justification.pdf.
[xxvii] House Committee on Appropriations, “Committee print of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives on H.R. 2617/Public Law 117-328,” U.S. House of Representatives (2023), https://www.congress.gov/117/cprt/HPRT50347/CPRT-117HPRT50347.pdf.
