In the aftermath of the intense controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election, especially due to Florida’s “hanging chads,” an independent commission was established by Congress to assist states in modernizing their voting systems. This commission, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), has mostly operated without much public attention but is now at the heart of a significant push by President Donald Trump to reform election processes. A meeting involving one of the commission’s boards, set to take place in North Carolina, marks the first gathering since Trump’s executive orders seeking election reforms were announced.
Key among Trump’s proposals is a revision of the national voter registration form to include a requirement for proof of citizenship. However, the extent of the president’s power to mandate such actions from an independent body, and whether such changes can be legally enforced by the commission, is expected to be a matter for the courts to decide.
The commission was born out of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, a legislative response to the chaotic voting conditions witnessed in Florida due to punch-card ballots, which led to confusion over voter intentions. This law sought to revamp voting processes and was endorsed widely across party lines, with George W. Bush signing it into effect. It provided federal funds to upgrade voting equipment and established voluntary guidelines, as well as certification programs for these systems.
Currently, the EAC is helmed by four commissioners appointed following recommendations from congressional leadership and confirmed by the Senate, with a cap of two members from the same political party. Despite historical challenges like budget reductions and vacancies, the commission has stabilized in recent years, gaining accolades for its consistent efforts from various election officials.
President Trump, a long-time critic of electoral processes, especially following his 2020 defeat to Joe Biden—despite substantiated investigations upholding Biden’s victory—is pursuing major election reforms. These include insisting on proof-of-citizenship for federal voter registration, and directives compelling the EAC to update voting system standards and halt funding to states not adhering to these documentation requirements.
Election experts, however, view these demands as quite impractical, noting the federal process requires advisory reviews and public commentary, making swift changes implausible. David Becker, an expert in election innovation, labeled the timeline suggested in Trump’s order as impractical and potentially chaotic.
The president’s executive order has sparked legal challenges from voting rights groups and Democratic political leaders across numerous states, who contend that Trump is overstepping his constitutional authority. They argue that the commission was designed by Congress to function independently, upholding bipartisan standards in cooperation with regional authorities.
Justin Levitt, a legal scholar with a background in civil rights law, remarked that Congress explicitly structured the EAC to operate independently, lacking enforcement power tied directly to the president’s agenda. This independence means presidential directives like Trump’s carry as much weight as non-mandates.
Looking forward, the commission’s Standards Board will be convening, likely fielding concerns from election officials regarding its duties under Trump’s directive. A recent communication from the EAC’s executive director to election administrators asked for feedback on implementing potential proof-of-citizenship requirements and their impacts on voter registration processes.
Commission Chairman Donald Palmer emphasized adherence to established legal processes regarding any proposed changes to voter registration requirements while acknowledging the ongoing legal proceedings which might clarify these contested orders. Palmer reflected on the commission’s recent successes in reaching agreement and anticipated that ongoing litigation would ultimately address the executive order’s implications.