Election Security Has Become A Partisan Issue As Senate Votes Down Funding
from the bad-ideas dept
It shouldn't matter which party you belong to (or if you belong to no party at all): fixing our totally broken election security should be a priority. This is a topic we've written about on Techdirt for nearly 20 years. The broken system of electronic voting has always been a security disaster, and now with more direct attempts to influence elections happening, it should be even more of a priority. And yet, following the lead in the House, this week the Senate voted down an amendment from Senator Patrick Leahy providing more funding for election security.
The vote was almost exactly along partisan lines, with only one crossover (Senator Bob Corker was the only Republican who voted for the amendment). While there were some arguments made against the bill, they don't make much sense:
Sen. Blunt said that states are responsible for running their elections, not the federal government, and that providing more funds would give the impression of federal overreach.
Sen. Lankford said on the floor Wednesday, referencing the omnibus funds, “the $380 million amount is what was needed for the moment," and indicated he didn't want to fund states beyond that right now.
There can be reasonable questions in how this money is being spent, and what's being done to actually secure elections, but the fact that this seems to be becoming a partisan issue should worry us all. And, I know some of you will be tempted to do this, but claiming that Republicans are against this because insecure technology helps them get elected is not a serious response. That's not only cynical, but almost certainly incorrect.
However, at a time when Congress (including many of the Senators who voted against this) have been grandstanding about tech companies being used to influence elections, the fact that they would then not really care that much about our woefully undersecured voting infrastructure just seems ridiculous. For years, we've argued that when tech policy issues get partisan, they get stupid, and it would be a real shame for election security, of all topics, to become stupidly partisan.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: election security, funding, partisanship, patrick leahy, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been hearing "the President is going to suspend elections!" conspiracy theories since the Bush Administration. So far it hasn't happened.
If you think it's "certain" that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November, then I don't think you've looked very closely at the seats that are in play. There are 33 Senate seats up in November; of those, only 8 are Republican seats. Democrats have to pick up a net 2 seats to gain a Senate majority (ie lose no seats and pick up 2, lose 1 seat but pick up 3, etc.). Their likeliest path to a Senate majority is to keep all their seats and win Arizona and Nevada, but again, this is far from certain; Manchin, McCaskill, and Heitkamp are all facing tough reelection campaigns and it's possible the Democrats could lose one or more of those seats.
In a "blue wave" scenario, Democrats could keep all their seats, pick up Arizona and Nevada and maybe even Tennessee and Texas. I would not describe that as a likely outcome, but it is possible.
The Democrats are more likely to take the House than the Senate. But this article is specifically about the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better approach would be to make the states decide what system they want, test it to verify accuracy and security, then let that state apply for Federal funding to help pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First: The purpose of the post-2000 grants was modernization, not security. This effort is fundamentally different, as its focus is security, and it's not just about upgrading voting machines. There are a lot of systems that need their security shored up, including voter rolls.
Second: 2000 was 18 years ago. Even under ideal circumstances, computers purchased early in the Bush Administration need to be replaced by now. Here's a good story on outdated election machines, including Texas districts still using ZIP disks and other discontinued hardware.
Third: While your suggestion that states should have a proposal already in place before they request a federal grant is reasonable, I see two issues with it: one is that I don't think it's any likelier to pass the Senate than Leahy's amendment; the other is that the election is in three months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The text of the amendment isn't yet indexed, but I am not sure that grants to modernize election systems (given the ambiguity shown by hanging chads) is necessarily equivalent to grants to spend on election security. Not knowing the text, It is quite possible such grants would have to be applied for.
I just feel that, with the exact text of the amendment not public, just that it was about grants for election security, your comments seem to be in favor of such grants ("apply for federal funding"), but against them when they are called grants. You say the issue was that the grants after bush/gore were spent on poorly researched options that were, in hindsight, a bad choice, so we shouldn't issue grants, but instead let the states who made poor choices, make those choices again, and apply for funding that doesn't exist, because in the budgetary process we did not allow for additional grants to the states for improving election security (which we know is already an issue in the upcoming election).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the alternative explanation, then?
What other possible explanation could there be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
The voting machine companies that have already sold 'secure' machines to the states don't want their equipment replaced with someone else's 'more secure' equipment, and they have already paid their bribes, um...erm...campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
Unless the voting machine companies derive substantial ongoing benefits from keeping their machines in service (whether through lucrative support contracts or, as you allege, backdoors to subvert the election), they shouldn't care if the machines get retired. They've been paid for the machines, and if they were smart at all, insisted that the support contract be paid upfront/non-refundable to the greatest extent the customer would accept. If so, they've already made their money off the machine and don't care whether it goes straight from delivery box to trash bin.
I think it's more likely that this is some combination of:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
I believe you mean "pretend to need."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
That they're fundamentally opposed to federal spending on anything besides tax cuts or the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
Therefore all of the connected scandals are partisan issues. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the alternative explanation, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everything is partisan
Partisan & special-interests routinely jockey for power and control -- that's what "politics" is.
Who seriously thinks that Congress is some sober, objective deliberative body?
Congress is dysfunctional and does not perform even its most basic functions.
Election-security is a quite trivial issue on the long list of Congressional failings.
And this focus on Federal "spending" to supposedly fix election-processes... is itself a very partisan (and erroneous) subjective viewpoint.
You would think there would be some kinda learning-curve for
people who actually observe Congress in action over the years & decades ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: everything is partisan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: everything is partisan
... you just did such in eleven words; all onlookers are duly impressed with your brevity/vacuity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: everything is partisan
Congressional members ....... I'm serious.
Many times those who suffer from mental deficiencies are not cognizant of same and will deny it in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
"Election-security is a quite trivial issue on the long list of Congressional failings."
I disagree, as it is not trivial.
"And this focus on Federal "spending" to supposedly fix election-processes... is itself a very partisan (and erroneous) subjective viewpoint."
So - do nothing ... great, as this is exactly what congress is doing - brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: everything is partisan
Actually, I'd say that what congress does most is spend other people's money on problems, while claiming that such expenditures will fix them. I (and presumably this should not be rare here) am dubious that the problems are usually fixed as a result.
That's not to say that federal money given to states as proposed in the amendment wouldn't increase election security. I have no idea. But, I lean toward the "provide some solid evidence/reasoning that this approach will work before we fund it" camp and away from the "pay and pray" camp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: everything is partisan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
My expectation is that they will target infrastructure this time around; power grid, communications, networks. Disrupting enough of that in just in the right areas should be sufficient to maintain plausible deniability while assuring the election outcomes they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dear Senate, Putin thanks you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not news.
US senators have nothing to do with gerrymandering. They're elected by state, not district.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news.
Yeah, but have you seen the shape of some of the states? We should really move state borders to fix Senate gerrymandering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
I was pointing out how ridiculous this attempt at sarcasm was. Strzok is a flaming liberal who spearheaded the FBI “influence” investigations on the election. He is on record saying he thought Hillary should win by 10000000 votes to zero and Trump will not win because he will “stop it”. So yes this is a concrete and recent example of law enforcement being fanatical liberals.
Understand? Probably not. Oh well. Carry on with your silliness, it is good for the written records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Let me know how you get on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
Thank you for confirming that Trumpism is indeed a cult. BTW your small-handed orange idol has feet of clay, but I'm sure it's the best clay. Have fun with your idolatry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
So trump got no payback for all the hate he spewed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think I agree with you (that’s strange)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/Yoda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too little, too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too little, too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too little, too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: too little, too late
No really I'm kidding. Anytime IT work is done it will depend on the project and people to determine if it is done right and/or quick. The problem is people usually only see and hear about the badly managed ones and not the projects that run correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The current government is less right than anti-left
Essentially the legislature and executive presently are less interested in pushing an agenda than they are going against everything endorsed by the left, even if the notion or policy is entirely rational.
So when we say that we need better election security, the GOP is inclined to take the opposite stance, simply because some Democrats agree that we need better election security.
It's kind of like the straw thing, where people are wasting disposable plastic straws just to piss off the environmentalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too little too late
If you think that the fed is in the business of handing out cash with no strings attached, then I have this bridge that makes a good income on tolls that is an investment just waiting for your life savings...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re Not Trying To Suggest ...
... that Republicans actually prefer crooked elections now, do you? That they’re terrified they can’t win if things were played fair?
I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that democracy itself has a Liberal bias now, could it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]