The Hollowing Out of Democracy: Dismantling the Election Assistance Commission

In the shadow of the approaching midterm elections, a foundational piece of America’s democratic infrastructure has been deliberately disabled. The remaining commissioners of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission (EAC) have been ousted by the White House, leaving the agency without a single confirmed leader. This act, framed by the administration as an exercise of presidential authority to secure elections, is in reality a profound and reckless assault on the nonpartisan systems that undergird free and fair voting in the United States. It is a solution in search of a problem, orchestrated not to strengthen our democracy, but to further destabilize public trust in its most sacred process.

The Facts: A Commission Vacated

As reported by PBS NewsHour’s White House correspondent Liz Landers, the three remaining commissioners were pushed out in a single day. Chairman Thomas Hicks (a Democrat), Commissioner Benjamin Hovland (a Democrat), and Commissioner Christy McCormick (a Republican who reportedly resigned under pressure) are now gone. This follows the prior departure of a fourth commissioner, leaving the EAC completely vacant for the first time since its creation after the 2000 election debacle. The dismissals were executed via email from a White House official, citing the president’s authority to remove officials who “may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections.”

The White House pointed to the recent Supreme Court decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB and its application in the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter as legal precedent, suggesting a new, aggressive interpretation of presidential removal power over independent agency heads. The move plunges the commission into operational paralysis, as it cannot officially act without its confirmed leadership.

The Context and Function of the EAC

To understand the gravity of this action, one must understand what the EAC does—and, crucially, what it does not do. Established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, the EAC was a direct, bipartisan response to the catastrophic failures of the 2000 presidential election. Its mission is not to govern elections, which are constitutionally delegated to the states, but to assist. As election expert David Becker noted, its power is largely advisory and supportive.

The commission’s core tasks are threefold. First, it works with state and local election officials to develop Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which set standards for certifying voting equipment. These guidelines are, as the name states, voluntary; not all states adopt them, but they provide a crucial, nationally recognized benchmark for security and reliability. Second, the EAC administers federal grant money to states for election improvements, when such funds are appropriated by Congress. Third, it conducts a biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), which is the nation’s most comprehensive source of data on how elections are run, from voter registration to ballot casting and counting.

In essence, the EAC is a clearinghouse, a facilitator, and a source of expertise. It is a forum where red and blue states can find common technical ground. By vacating it, the administration has not seized control of elections; it has simply removed a pillar of nonpartisan support and coordination at a time when it is needed most.

The Chilling Signal and the Manufactured Crisis

This act cannot be viewed in isolation. It is the latest salvo in a sustained, years-long campaign to sow doubt about the integrity of American elections, a campaign that has survived despite a resounding lack of evidence. As Liz Landers outlines, this presidency has been characterized by pressure on intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice, and state officials, often resulting in judicial pushback. Courts have repeatedly reminded the executive branch that it lacks authority over state election administration. The fantastical pursuit of widespread fraud in places like Fulton County has yielded nothing. The “problem” of systemic election fraud, as Landers succinctly states, does not exist.

Thus, the firing of the EAC commissioners is not a good-faith effort to solve a real issue. It is political theater with devastating real-world consequences. It is a signal—loud and clear—that any institution, however technical or bipartisan, that does not align with a narrative of endemic failure and requires “securing” is subject to destruction. The message to career civil servants and independent commissioners across the government is chilling: your expertise is subordinate to political loyalty.

Oregon’s Democratic Secretary of State, Tobias Read, labeled the firings “irresponsible and reckless.” He pointed out the profound cynicism of the move: if the goal were genuinely to strengthen elections, the administration would focus on restoring funding to agencies that combat foreign cyber intrusions or expanding access to secure voting methods like Oregon’s vote-by-mail system. Instead, it chooses to “manufacture controversy and exceed[] his authority.” This is the essence of the action: it creates chaos and undermines confidence while doing nothing to address genuine vulnerabilities.

The Assault on Institutional Guardrails

From a principled standpoint committed to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law, this is an unconscionable breach of duty. Democratic systems do not run on passion alone; they run on procedure, on norms, and on trusted, nonpartisan institutions. The EAC was one such norm—a small but symbolic acknowledgment that after the trauma of 2000, both parties could agree on the need for better standards, better data, and better resources for the people who actually run our elections.

Dismantling it is an act of anti-institutional vandalism. It treats a vital piece of democratic infrastructure as a disposable political appurtenance. The invocation of a Supreme Court case to justify the move is particularly galling, representing a weaponization of legal technicality against the spirit of cooperative governance. It seeks to replace a culture of bipartisan problem-solving with a culture of unilateral purges.

Furthermore, this action directly contradicts the stated aim of “securing” elections. Security is born from stability, transparency, and expertise. By creating instability, reducing transparency (a commission with no leaders cannot effectively report or survey), and dismissing expertise, the administration is making our electoral system less secure, not more. It is creating the very conditions of confusion and mistrust that malign actors, both foreign and domestic, seek to exploit.

Conclusion: A Call for Steadfast Defense

The vacant chairs at the Election Assistance Commission are a powerful metaphor for the current state of American democracy. Where there should be stewards, there is emptiness. Where there should be quiet, diligent work to ensure smooth elections, there is loud, destructive political performance.

For those of us who believe in the Constitution and the delicate balance of powers it enshrines, this moment demands clear-eyed condemnation. We must stand with the state and local election officials of both parties who will now have to navigate the midterms with one fewer federal partner. We must amplify the voices of experts like David Becker and public servants like Tobias Read who see this move for what it is: a dangerous distraction.

Defending liberty is not just about grand speeches; it is about protecting the unglamorous, technical committees that make grand speeches possible by ensuring votes are counted accurately. The firing of the EAC commissioners is a small action with a vast symbolic weight. It is a declaration that the machinery of democracy is negotiable. Our response must be a unified, nonpartisan declaration that it is not. The work to repair this damage and restore a functional, bipartisan commission must begin immediately, for the integrity of our next election—and every election that follows—depends on it.