It’s reassuring to learn that Vermont’s online voter registration system was able to repel a series of attempted cyber intrusions last August. But Secretary of State Jim Condos is absolutely correct that the Green Mountain State — or any state, for that matter — cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to election security.
“There is gratification and a sense of relief” that the attack was turned back, Condos told The Associated Press. “But there is also a concern going forward: ‘Oh my god, what are we going to face next?’ ”
In all likelihood, what the nation’s election systems will face for the foreseeable future is a continuing, ever-shifting threat of unknown dimensions from foreign bad actors who have gleaned from Russian election interference in 2016 just how easy it is to undermine Western democracies. In his testimony before Congress last week, special counsel Robert Mueller minced no words about continued Russian meddling: “They’re doing it as we sit here,” he said. Mueller also asserted that many more countries “are developing capability to replicate what the Russians have done.”
The point was underscored last Thursday in a heavily redacted report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It said that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by the Russians in 2016, an effort that went largely undetected at the time by federal and state officials. There’s no evidence that votes were changed, the committee said, but the search for vulnerabilities may have been intended as a basis for future meddling.
The committee said progress has been made since then as the Department of Homeland Security and state and local election officials have “dramatically changed how they approach election security.” But the fact that some state election systems, especially voter registration databases, remain highly vulnerable is easily inferred from the heavy redactions that intelligence agencies insisted on before the report was issued. Those states were referred to only by number to shield their identities, according to The New York Times.
The Times also reported that cybersecurity in election systems around the country varies widely from state to state, with some big ones, such as New Jersey, still using voting machines that do not create a paper trail that can be audited, a basic security measure. One reason, some officials say, is lack of money to replace existing machines and update systems.
Democrats in the House have passed a $600 million spending bill that would channel more money to states to boost election security, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has refused to take it up, arguing that Congress has already done enough to help.
McConnell has long been wary of any increased federal role in elections, traditionally the province of the states. But it may also be that he does not wish to affront President Donald Trump, who only episodically acknowledges Russian interference on his behalf in 2016. In fact, the White House has already abolished the post of cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council. But Republicans should think twice about obstructing the effort to make elections systems more secure. Yes, Trump benefited from the Russian effort in 2016, but in 2020 a nation such as Iran or China that is at odds with the administration could attempt to put its thumb on the scale in a countervailing manner while attention is focused on Russia.
More money would only help, though, if state election officials take the threat of cyber intrusions seriously. One who does not appear to do so is New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who last month declined to attend a gathering of New England state election officials and federal Homeland Security experts at the University of New Hampshire. It was organized by Condos to provide an opportunity to share information about threats to the 2020 elections and how to protect against them.
According to Seacoastonline.com, Gardner’s excuse was that the forum was closed to the public and that it would serve to legitimize federal oversight of state elections. But obviously, security threats and countermeasures are not subjects to be discussed in public, and there’s no indication we know of that the federal government wants to run elections for the states. Gardner also repeated his oft-stated contention that New Hampshire’s election systems cannot be penetrated by cyber intruders. That sounds like hubris that can be ill afforded in the face of a dire threat to American democracy.