Court Dismisses Challenge to U.S. Election Guidelines

A federal court in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's (EAC) adoption of new voluntary guidelines for voting systems. The ruling affects individuals and organizations concerned about election security and the procedures governing the development of voting guidelines. The case highlights the complexities surrounding election regulations and the legal standing required to challenge government actions.

The case, Stark v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Civil Action No. 2021-1864, was filed by Philip B. Stark, a member of the EAC's Board of Advisors, and the nonprofit organization Free Speech for People (FSFP). They alleged that the EAC failed to follow proper procedures when adopting the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims.

The EAC was established under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to ensure trustworthy and secure elections. Among its responsibilities, the EAC develops the VVSG, which states can choose to follow when implementing voting systems. The guidelines are not mandatory, but they serve as a benchmark for election security standards across the country.

The dispute arose when the EAC began developing the VVSG 2.0 in 2015. The plaintiffs argued that the EAC weakened key provisions related to wireless connectivity in voting systems between the proposed and final versions of the guidelines. They claimed that the EAC did not provide adequate notice or an opportunity for public comment on significant changes made to the guidelines, which they argued violated HAVA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presided over the case and issued the ruling on August 28, 2026. The court found that both Stark and FSFP lacked standing to challenge the EAC's actions. The judge noted that Stark failed to demonstrate a concrete interest that would distinguish his claims from those of the general public. Similarly, FSFP's claims were deemed moot, as the court found that the EAC had not engaged in any further meetings with the group that the plaintiffs alleged was improperly convened.

The court ruled, "Because both Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the organizational Plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Advisory Committee Act is moot, the Court cannot award the Plaintiffs the relief that they seek."

This ruling has significant implications for future challenges to the EAC and its guidelines. It underscores the importance of legal standing in federal court, particularly for individuals and organizations seeking to challenge government actions. The decision may deter similar lawsuits unless plaintiffs can clearly demonstrate a concrete injury related to the guidelines.

Going forward, the EAC will continue to develop and implement voting system guidelines, and states will have the discretion to adopt these standards as they see fit. The ruling may also influence how other organizations approach legal challenges related to election regulations. As election security remains a critical issue in the U.S., the legal landscape surrounding voting guidelines may evolve further.

As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, the plaintiffs may consider their options, including whether to seek a higher court's review of the ruling.