Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election security demands a White House coordinator, report says

White House
P_Wei/Getty Images

Installing someone at the White House to oversee election security is critical for unifying the government's efforts to combat threats to future elections, a study released Tuesday contends.

The report by The New Center, a nonpartisan think tank, offered five recommendations for improving election security. Topping the list was reappointing someone to serve as White House cybersecurity coordinator. The position on the National Security Council was eliminated in 2018 when John Bolton was national security advisor and sought to "streamline" the council. Lawmakers from both parties questioned the move.

Previously, the coordinator served to unify cybersecurity activities across various federal agencies, a vital role for ensuring an effective response to cyber threats, the report argues.


"With the government's top position on cybersecurity eliminated, and agencies having disparate roles and responsibilities in managing election security and assistance, the federal government lacks an overarching inter-agency or executive mechanism that sets clear standards and strategies for addressing election security concerns," it concluded.

The report also suggests the creation of an "election security coordinating committee" in the West Wing to be chaired by the new cybersecurity coordinator.

The New Center also identified four other strategies for strengthening and instilling trust of election security:

  • Changing federal law to provide states with additional grant opportunities to fund continuously updated election infrastructure.
  • Requiring one new and politically independent commissioner to serve on the Federal Election Commission, and another on the Election Assistance Commission, to minimize the current status quo of partisan gridlock.
  • Establishing a "transparent framework" for greater insight into what personal information is being shared by technology companies with federal agencies.
  • Creating new state and local grants that would allow low-income Americans to obtain cost-free voter identification documents in states that require such IDs to cast ballots.

Read More

U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less