Do you want a federal agency to send in hired contractors to conduct random precinct recounts around the country, even, under certain circumstances, for state and local elections?
If you didn't answer "yes" to these questions, then you understand why the Holt Bill should not be passed as written.
The Counter-Argument
Even if this assumption is correct right now--which is doubtful--the battle lines on the EAC's regulatory powers have already been drawn.
Last November I cited the following instance of the EAC power-grab in my Gifts of HAVA document:
In a September 2005 EAC advisory, the following footnote asserted legal precedent for transforming administrative interpretation into de facto rulemaking authority (emphasis mine):
The EAC is the Federal agency charged with the administration of HAVA. HAVA requires the Commission to draft guidance to assist states in their implementation of Section 301(a). Although EAC's administrative interpretations do not have the force of law associated with legislative rules, the Supreme Court has long held that the interpretations of agencies charged with the administration of a statute are to be given deferential treatment by courts when faced with issues of statutory construction.
But look what's currently in the news. An ElectionLine.org newsletter, published just last Thursday, March 30th, entitled "Stealth Showdown Out West," Doug Chapin describes a battle being waged by the EAC to assert regulatory authority over the State of Arizona.
With this sort of evidence of how hard the EAC is pushing to establish de facto regulatory authority, one has to wonder why groups like VoteTrustUsa, and even Congressman Holt, are not getting it!
Read what ElectionLine Director Chapin writes below (emphasis mine):
NVRA Tussle Between Arizona and EAC Could Reverberate
Lost in higher-profile clashes over voting machines, voter databases and voter ID across the country, a developing spat between Arizona state and federal officials is rapidly shaping up to be a watershed event in the field of election reform.
The gory details
The substance of the dispute is deceptively arcane. It centers on Proposition 200, which was enacted by Arizona's voters in 2004. Specifically, "Prop 200" amends state election law to prevent local registrars from accepting a voter registration application unless it is accompanied by some kind of state-approved documentation.
These requirements have drawn the attention of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in its enforcement role under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Earlier this month, the EAC wrote Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer (R) to inform her that that Prop 200's requirements violate NVRA to the extent that they constitute an additional citizenship requirement for individuals using the National Voter Registration Form.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
