R47592 — Federal Standards and Guidelines for Voting Systems: Overview and Potential Considerations for Congress

States and localities choose the voting systems used in elections in the United States. They decide which systems to use and contract with vendors as necessary to acquire and maintain them. The federal government plays a role, though, in shaping the systems available for states and localities to choose from. First, federal law sets some mandatory standards for voting systems, including standards for their functionality and their accessibility to individuals with disabilities, older individuals, and members of language minority groups. Second, federal law provides for a program, overseen by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to develop and update voluntary federal guidelines for voting systems and test and certify systems to the guidelines. The federal voting system testing and certification program was designed as a service to states and localities, and use of systems that conform to the EAC’s Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) is voluntary under federal law. However, widespread adoption of the program by states under their own state laws means that the VVSG have significant influence in practice, shaping the kinds of voting systems vendors develop and market. The EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee is charged by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) with helping the agency’s executive director develop draft VVSG, with technical support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The draft VVSG are shared with the public and the EAC’s Board of Advisors and Standards Board for review and comment before they are submitted to the agency’s commissioners for a vote on adoption. The commissioners have adopted three versions of the guidelines to date: VVSG 1.0 in 2005, VVSG 1.1 in 2015, and VVSG 2.0 in 2021. Testing and certification of voting systems to the VVSG is also overseen by the EAC. The agency’s commissioners, with assistance from NIST, accredit laboratories to test voting systems to the guidelines. Confirmation by an EAC-accredited lab that a vendor’s voting system conforms to the VVSG is the main requirement for federal certification. However, vendors also have to meet other requirements before their systems are certified, such as depositing voting system software in an EAC-approved repository, and after certification, such as notifying the EAC of any malfunctions of their fielded voting systems and participating in the agency’s Quality Monitoring Program. HAVA established general procedures for developing the VVSG and for testing and certifying voting systems to the guidelines, but, as is often the case with statutory language, it did not specify all the details of how the procedures should work or what they should cover. Those specifics have been filled in by the EAC, its advisory bodies, and NIST, with input from the public. Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation to codify, change, or supplement those choices, offering bills on the VVSG development, testing, and certification processes or the scope of the guidelines. Some Members have also proposed expanding the scope of mandatory federal standards for voting systems. As noted above, the VVSG have significant influence in practice because many states have adopted some or all of the federal voting system testing and certification program. However, there are relatively few actual federal mandates for voting systems. While some Members favor limited involvement by the federal government in this area, others have seen a role for new federal requirements. They have introduced bills that would limit foreign ownership or control of voting system vendors, for example, or require voting systems to produce individual paper records that can be verified by voters and manually audited by election officials. Setting standards and guidelines is perhaps the most direct way Congress can influence choices about voting systems. Voting system policymaking comes with some complexities, however, due to (1) the multiple objectives voting systems are expected to meet, and (2) practical constraints on voting system production and implementation. Members who are interested in engaging with voting system policy might choose to consider whether or how to account for those complexities when designing new standards and guidelines. Alternatively, they might consider exploring other avenues for advancing voting system priorities. For example, Members might choose to consider other legislative tools—such as funding, research, or technical assistance—or other congressional authorities, such as oversight or appointment authorities.

Curated by CRS — every bill listed in this report's relatedMaterials. Edge type cited_in_report, gold confidence.

• HR 3257 — Election Integrity Act of 2023 · 118th Cong
• S 1500 — SECURE IT Act · 118th Cong
• S 630 — Sustaining Our Democracy Act · 118th Cong
• HR 466 — Securing America’s Elections Act of 2023 · 118th Cong