Huge grain of salt: I'm not well versed in reading legal documents and may be way off the mark.
Normally, a move like this might not be a big deal, but given the current administration's refusal to acknowledge prior election interference despite the IC's unanimous claim of said interference, this seems worrying.
The EAC is responsible for various activities relating to support of state administration of elections.
They both relate to elections in the same way that NOAA and the Navy both have missions that relate to the oceans.
To make it easier to count, we can use machines to print votes on a piece of paper (something akin to a receipt-roll). These votes are printed when voter casts vote, and the machines shows the vote to the voter through a small hole in the machine (preventing the voter from seeing the preference of the previous voter).
Vote-rolls are distributed like ballots, and they are "sealed" in the machine before are sent back to the central counting places. OCR is used to read the votes from the rolls.
Machines can also keep track of votes digitally, for a quick count. The quick and slow count should match.
This way we can have quicker and cheaper voting, while not compromising (much) on security wrt to voting-by-pencil.
Voting machines should print off a receipt of your vote, which you can then confirm and seal in an envelope, like you would a paper vote, and put in a box of paper votes. The machines will also need to have a method for voters to correct an incorrect vote somehow.
If there are irregularities, or a recount is needed, the paper votes can be counted. There should also be an option for a normal paper vote, if the voter so choses, like how in an airport you can choose an Xray or a pat-down.
Upon saying that, I don't see what's wrong with paper votes. Elections don't happen very often, and paper voting scales perfectly fine with population.