New Funding Fails to Close Gaps in Election Cybersecurity

Senators are pushing for another round of federal dollars to vulnerable states—but it still won’t be enough to protect the 2018 midterms.

AP Photo/Alexander F. Yuan
April 24, 2018, 8 p.m.

Last month’s $380 million infusion of federal funds for states to shore up their election systems against cyberattack was hailed as a crucial, if somewhat belated, response to ongoing efforts by Russia and other adversaries to meddle in U.S. elections.

But even as the Election Assistance Commission scrambles to get that money to states ahead of the November midterms, experts warn that it’s unlikely to make more than a dent in the most pressing election-cybersecurity problems—particularly the need to replace paperless voting machines with those that leave an auditable paper trail of each vote cast.

“It’s going to be tough to get many places to replace equipment before November 2018,” said Lawrence Norden, the deputy director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. States will have only a few months to negotiate contracts and certify the equipment, and Norden said that “lag time” makes it unlikely that the dozen or so states still voting on predominantly paperless systems can swap out their machines before the midterms.

Looking past November, there’s growing consensus in the election-security community that last month’s one-time influx of federal dollars is woefully insufficient to safeguard future votes against bad actors in cyberspace.

“The $380 million is not enough,” said Marian Schneider, president of the Verified Voting Foundation.

Because the money is allocated according to population rather than need, Schneider said it won’t do enough to help the states that still must replace most or all of their paperless voting machines. The same goes for the whopping 47 states whose election-auditing systems—the statistical processes through which officials actually review a produced paper trail for potential inconsistencies—experts say are not up to snuff.

A bipartisan bill now percolating through the Senate is set to address those specific concerns. Sponsored by Sens. James Lankford and Kamala Harris—and recently bolstered by support from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner—the Secure Elections Act would push an additional $386 million toward the states, with extra money for those that need it the most.

But the legislation is not without its detractors. In a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, Chairman Ron Johnson repeatedly questioned the wisdom of focusing further federal efforts on election cybersecurity, which he believes is already robust.

“What we don’t want to do is play into [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s hands and legitimize his activity here and upset the American public, make them question the legitimacy of these past and future elections,” Johnson told reporters after the hearing.

The Wisconsin Republican highlighted the lack of evidence that Kremlin-linked hackers did more than scan voter databases and conduct probing attacks last election cycle and suggested that, if anything, lawmakers could work with states to help them prioritize how to best spend the funds they’ve already been given.

Jim Condos, Vermont’s secretary of state and the incoming president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said Johnson’s reasoning is exactly backwards.

“That scares the hell out of me, that he doesn’t understand the elections process and he doesn’t understand cybersecurity,” Condos told National Journal.

Condos said public confidence has already been undermined by Russia’s actions in 2016, and that new initiatives funded with federal dollars are expressly designed to regenerate that confidence by providing proof that foreign meddling did not affect an election’s outcome.

“It really would be a head-in-the-sand type approach to say if we don’t give any more money to this, the problem’s going to go away,” he said. “That’s not reality.”

Condos said the $386 million promised under the Secure Elections Act was formulated before the inclusion of $380 million for the same set of issues in last month’s omnibus. “I expect that number’s going to change,” he said.

While Condos and other election-security experts would welcome an additional $386 million, they worry even that number may not be enough to prepare states for years of battle against determined cyber-adversaries.

After paperless voting machines are done away with and auditing systems are made statistically robust, states will still face additional cybersecurity challenges. Old equipment will need to be swapped out, out-of-date operating systems will need to be upgraded, and election workers will need to be trained to resist spear phishing and other common ruses employed by foreign intelligence services online.

“Especially now that the federal government has named elections critical infrastructure, I think it’s incumbent on them to provide the resources that we’re going to need,” said Condos, adding that most states are too cash-strapped to devote more than a token amount of funding toward election cybersecurity. “If it’s just another round of one-time money, I don’t think that’s going to be particularly helpful.”

Beyond the typical aversion to increased spending, election-security experts say some lawmakers seem to be wrapping politics into what should be a cut-and-dried issue of national security. To them, Johnson’s concern about delegitimizing “past elections” indicates that some Republicans believe acknowledging the problem of foreign cyber-meddling undermines President Trump’s 2016 victory.

It’s an assertion most experts vociferously deny. And Schneider believes the issue should naturally transcend party politics. “Every congressman, every senator—they are all elected on the same equipment, regardless of party,” she said.

Politics may also be blocking meaningful executive action on election cybersecurity. Paul Rosenzweig, a senior cybersecurity fellow at the libertarian R Street Institute, suggested that Trump’s unwillingness to confront the Kremlin over its actions during the 2016 election means Putin will continue testing state election systems until he’s met with a response.

“Deterrence is at least an equal, if not a superior, component to the overall strategy as defense,” Rosenzweig said. “And the federal government’s systematic commitment to either or both of these is often dependent upon direction from the president—which has been lacking.”

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login