WASHINGTON, D.C. – All Voting is Local submitted comments to the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee regarding the draft of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.1 and the implementation of the Executive Order to Protect the Integrity of American Elections, ahead of their virtual July 2, meeting. Read the full comment below:
FOR: Don Palmer, Chairman
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Craig Burkhardt, Acting NIST Director
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
FROM: All Voting is Local
DATE: June 26, 2025
SUBJECT: Comment for the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee regarding the draft of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.1 and the implementation of the Executive Order to Protect the Integrity of American Elections
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) is soliciting public comment in preparation for their virtual meeting on July 02, 2025, during which EAC staff and TGDC members will discuss the draft of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 2.1 and the implementation of Executive Order No. 14,248, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” (EO). The meeting agenda states that the TGDC will discuss issues, pass resolutions, and vote on the VVSG 2.1 draft.1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the upcoming TGDC virtual meeting. All Voting is Local (“All Voting”) is a nonpartisan organization that fights on the ground in eight states for free and fair elections. In a moment of unprecedented threat to our democracy, All Voting advocates state and local officials for policies and practices that ensure the American people choose their leaders, not the other way around. All Voting writes to provide comments on the docket EAC-2025-0010.
We are compelled to raise concerns regarding the upcoming July 02, 2025 TGDC virtual meeting, the development of the VVSG 2.1 draft, and the EAC’s purported implementation of the EO. First, Section 4(b) of the EO is an unlawful attempt by the President to dictate election rules. Second, we object to how the VVSG 2.1 draft was developed and how, if at all, it will be voted on during the July 2, 2025 meeting.
Section 4(b) of the EO is an unlawful attempt by the President to dictate election rules:
The President has no power to dictate election rules.2 Section 4(b) of the EO is an unlawful attempt to do just that.
While the draft of VVSG 2.1 suggests in some places that modifications are being made “at the direction” or “produced by” the TGDC, elsewhere the source of the changes are quite clear: the draft states that “[t]his version offers additional clarifications based on . . . the Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections Executive Order (EO) signed on March 25, 2025.”3
It’s unclear what, other than VVSG 2.1, the TGDC will consider in connection with implementation of the EO. To the extent that the TGDC takes up the EO’s command regarding rescission of previous certifications, it must reject any action to rescind previous certifications. There is no lawful path to decertification under these circumstances. Decertification is only permitted where a system does not meet applicable VVSG (i.e., the VVSG the machine had previously been certified under), has been modified or changed without following the procedural requirements of the Manual, or the manufacturer has failed to follow the Manual’s procedures and the quality, configuration, or compliance of the system is in question.4 Further, rescinding all previous certifications of voting systems would leave 11 states and Washington, D. C. without any legally-available voting system option until a voting system can be certified.5
Objections to how the VVSG 2.1 draft was developed and how it will be voted on during the July 2, 2025 meeting:
The portions of VVSG 2.1 implementing section 4(b) of the Executive Order were developed hastily and without transparency. In fact, the draft is materially misleading—for example, it does not accurately reflect the proposed changes over VVSG 2.0. Section 9.1.5-C shows deleted language, purportedly from VVSG 2.0, that never appeared in VVSG 2.0. Further, while the cover page of the VVSG 2.1 draft document says, “Prepared by the Election Assistance Commission at the direction of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee,” it is unclear if the TGDC actually gave that guidance during their January 14, 2025 meeting.
Updates to the VVSG are governed by HAVA and EAC policy, which are designed to ensure that VVSG reflects the input of important stakeholders.6 The draft of VVSG 2.1 implementing the EO was not prepared following the processes required under federal law. Given the process failures, neither the TGDC nor the EAC have the benefit of the robust stakeholder input that the legislation and EAC rules require. The delay in publishing the draft of VVSG 2.1 and the lack of transparency in what else will be considered in connection with implementation of the EO mean that important stakeholders with deep expertise in election accessibility and security will not have a full and fair opportunity to comment.
Further, there are currently 6 vacancies on the TGDC, including one of the election officials from the standards board, both of the ACCESS board representatives, and two of the technical experts. Given that so much of the VVSG 2.1 draft focuses on accessibility, the TGDC should not vote on it when 2/3 of the accessibility experts and 40% of the total TGDC are ineligible to vote.
Summary
In summary, we have several legal, procedural, and technical concerns regarding the EAC’s plans to implement the EO, and how the VVSG 2.1 draft was developed. The EAC must remain a bipartisan and independent agency that receives and incorporates stakeholder input, as mandated by several laws and policies. Legitimate updates to the VVSG require adherence to rules set through HAVA and EAC policy. It appears the EAC and TGDC have failed to do this in the development of VVSG 2.1, and thus we urge the TGDC to rescind the 2.1 draft.
Further, the Executive Order conflicts with federal law and the U.S. Constitution. We urge the EAC to defend the independence of our election systems, and their own independence and bipartisanship, by refraining from implementing any of the President’s unlawful commands.
There is nothing more fundamental to our democracy than voting, and President Trump’s executive order attacks our Constitutional right to cast a ballot as it attempts to seize control of our elections and undermine the authority of Congress, state governments, and independent election agencies. This blatant overreach threatens the foundation of American democracy—the ability for people to make their voices heard. This is a multi-pronged approach to undermine our elections and keep voters – particularly Black, Brown, young, voters with disabilities, and other historically excluded voters – from voting. If this power grab succeeds, it opens the door for the administration to manipulate elections for political gain. Protecting the sanctity of our elections in 2026, 2028, and beyond means resisting these dangerous attempts to consolidate power.
Sincerely,
All Voting is Local
1TGDC 2025 Annual Meeting Agenda V4 06_13_25
2 LULAC v. Executive Of ice of the President, Case No. 1:25-cv-00946, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2025 WL 1187730, at *36 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2025).); California v. Trump, No. 25-CV-10810-DJC, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2025 WL 1667949, at *8 (D. Mass. June 13, 2025) (“Congress, not the President, has the ultimate constitutional authority over elections.”)..
3 Requirements for the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.1 (Draft), p. 9.
4 EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual § 7.
5 March 27, 2025 Letter to EAC Regarding Executive Order on Elections, Brennan Center for Justice.
6 52 U.S.C. § 20962; VVSG Lifecycle Policy §§ 4.3-4.5.