By: Sarah Johnson
Election Security is much in the news and on almost everyone’s radar right now. Numerous reports (including a bipartisan Senate report) have been released detailing how Russia interfered with the 2016 election through multiple methods and means. So how will we protect the 2020 presidential election? No one has come up with the comprehensive plan yet, but a few different pieces of legislation have been proposed that address various parts of the process.
Thought there is no evidence any individual votes were changed in the 2016 election, the integrity of our actual votes remains a big concern in 2020. It is important to the democratic process for both our votes to be secure as well as for us all to feel that our votes are secure. Enter the Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act, an attempt at addressing a few specific areas of election security. The SAFE Act has passed the House but has not been brought to the Senate floor. There are also a few other pieces of proposed legislation from the House and Senate worth discussing, though they have not yet received a hearing.
Let’s dive in!
The SAFE Act
The Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act primarily does two things: require voting systems to use backup paper ballots in federal elections, and mandate improvements to the “high-tech” side of the polls. The bill authorizes $600 million for states to use to bolster election security; while also awarding states $175 million biannually to help sustain their election infrastructure. Under the SAFE Act, voting systems must: use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots, and, make a voter’s marked ballot available for inspection and verification by them before the vote is cast. (See this post about risk limiting audits for a detailed look at one way paper ballots can be used to efficiently confirm voter intent.)
The SAFE Act also aims to lock down possible cyber security threats by requiring the implementation of cybersecurity safeguards for the hardware and software used in elections. One way to do this is to ban wireless communication devices in election systems. Any new voting systems would be required to be manufactured in the United States. Vendors of voting machines must also certify their systems comply with the latest “Voluntary Voting System Guidelines”, while also making the source code for these systems available for inspection by the public.
While this bill primarily aims to address election security, it also provides $5 million for a grant program to be administered by the National Science Foundation. This program will research accessible paper ballot verification methods in order to address the needs of voters with disabilities, who have a hard time reading, or for voters who speak English as a second language.
This bill has been touted as having bipartisan support; it passed with every Democrat and one House Republican, Florida Representative Brian Mast, voting yea. Most Republicans in office have acknowledged an urgent need to secure our election systems before the primaries (that February 3rd date for the Iowa caucus is approaching, quickly), but have spoken out against the SAFE Act.
Opponents to the bill have cited the nationalizing of election systems as a main point of contention. Calling the bill federal overreach, some Republicans are worried it may lead states to not attend to their own voting infrastructure as diligently as they would (should) once there is the federal involvement proposed by the bill. Currently all elections (local, state and national level) are managed by states and their localities.
Some Republicans also cite issues with the provision requiring the paper ballots to be printed on recycled paper. They argue that using re-purposed paper could create readability issues, thus creating quality control issues – the whole reason the legislation was proposed to begin with. In June, Oklahoma’s top election official testified that given the sensitivity of his ballot scanners, “if we were required to use recycled paper, it would actually run the risk of causing false readings.”
House Republicans have largely supported a separate election security bill, the Election Security Assistance Act, H.R. 3412. This bill would make several similar changes, but would remove many of the federal requirements the SAFE Act would impose. The Election Security Assistance Act would also reduce the appropriated funds to $380 million for the 2020 elections.
The Election Security Act of 2019
The Election Security Act would require backup paper ballots and provide grants tied to election security for states to use for cyber improvements and audits. In order to do this, the bill requires cybersecurity standards for voting system vendors be established and cybersecurity training be provided to election officials. Not only does the bill target the methods in which elections are conducted and counted, but the bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to assess threats to election systems 180 days before an election. The legislation would then require the Department of Homeland Security and the Election Assistance Commission to issue recommendations to address said threats. Finally the legislation would require the President to produce a national strategy for protecting democratic institutions and create a National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions.
This bill has many companion bills including the For the People Act of 2019 and the Secure American-Made Voting Machines Act. The For the People Act was the House Democrats’ first piece of passed legislation after they regained the majority in 2019. The 571-page bill is a compilation of existing problems and proposed solutions in four political “hot zones”: voting, elections, campaign finance and ethics. This bill aimed to make voter registration easier by allowing citizens to register online or get registered automatically, using data from state issued driver’s licenses or other government sources. For federal elections, states would have to provide same-day registration and at least 15 days of early voting. Election Day would be a federal holiday and state chief election officials couldn’t get involved in federal campaigns. Finally, the bill requires federal elections to have paper ballots to prevent computer tampering. The Secure American-Made Voting Machines Act requires voting machines be manufactured in the United States.
Other Election Security Legislation
A few other politicians have attempted to force votes in the Senate, unsuccessfully. Virginia Senator Mark Warner (D), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to move a bill that would require campaigns to report contact with foreign nationals seeking to meddle in elections, called the FIRE Act. The “Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act”, or FIRE Act, would require candidates for federal office and their committee staff to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the FBI any contacts with foreign nationals offering contributions, information or services. Anyone who knowingly and willfully violates this reporting obligation would be subject to a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) sponsored the Duty to Report Act (House companion bill sponsored by Eric Swalwell) and is similar to the FIRE Act. The Duty to Report Act would obligate political committees to report to the FEC any offers of prohibited contributions. “Prohibited contributions” are defined in the legislation as offers of nonpublic information relating to other candidates from foreign nationals. This legislation also would require candidates, political committees, close family members of candidates and individuals affiliated with a campaign to report to the FBI any offers of prohibited contributions from foreign nationals. Knowing and willing violations of this latter obligation would once again trigger criminal penalties, including up to two years in prison.
Ron Wyden (D)*, Bill Cassidy (R), Tom Cotton (R), Angus King Jr. (I), Mike Rounds (R) and Chris Van Hollen Jr. (D) all co-sponsored the Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act. This legislation would allow the Senate sergeant-at-arms to assist Senate staffers with securing their own personal communications devices and accounts against hacking and other forms of cyberattacks – attempting to address the Senate’s own internal cybersecurity weaknesses. This bill would also improve reporting requirements by requiring the comptroller general to prepare an annual report detailing threats to the legislative branch regarding cybersecurity and surveillance. This report would include statistics on cyber attacks and other incidents targeting the personal communications of Senators, family members and staff.
Here is a map of all the legislation from around the US having to do with “Election Security” and cyber security.
Conclusion
Although Republicans acknowledge and agree about the urgent need for progress in securing our nation’s election systems, only one Republican voted for the bill in the House and legislation addressing election security it has not yet been brought to the floor in the Republican controlled Senate. Senate Majority Leader McConnell cites concerns about these measures possibly eroding states’ authority over elections.
Although I understand a state’s rights argument, the fact that only one bill has gotten a hearing and been voted on when our elections are only a year away is incredibly alarming. There may be no universal “silver bullet” that makes our elections safe, but I feel we should definitely be doing *something*.
Cover Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.