Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The 13 states where election security matters most

mail in ballot image with a green box
Blablo101/Getty Images

Along with the candidates and the issues, the 2020 presidential election is also going to be about the voting process itself.

Russian efforts to hack into the voting systems of 2016 have boosted election security to a critical concern this time, prompting states to spend tens of millions buying new equipment, hiring cybersecurity wizards and installing software that warns of intrusions — among numerous other steps. More purchases of hardware, software and expertise are coming in the months ahead.

Whether enough money gets spent, and wisely, won't be known for sure until Nov. 3, 2020 — when the system will be subject to the one test that really matters. And whether the country decides the presidential election result is trustworthy will likely come down to how reliably things work in the relatively small number of states both nominees are contesting.

[ Swing states build 2020 hacking protections: Will they hold?]

With 11 months to go, The Fulcrum reviewed information from state elections officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Election Assistance Commission and news reports to get a sense of the election security landscape. Here's the state of play in the 13 states likeliest to be presidential battlegrounds.

Test your election security knowledge with our quiz.



Arizona

Arizona 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: Attempted but not successful. Cybercriminals stole login credentials to Arizona's voter registration database in 2016 but could not break into the database itself. Russian intelligence officers also used a computer located in Arizona to help transfer information stolen from hacked national Democratic Party computers.

Security enhancements since: The state created a multifactor login system to safeguard voter registration records and is building a new voter registration database.

Voting paper trail: Balloting equipment must generate a voter-verifiable paper record.

Spending federal grants: To create the new voter registration database.

Quote: "We got lucky," Michele Reagan, Arizona's GOP secretary of state in 2016, said of the failed hacking attempts. "We had a real wake-up call with that."

Colorado

Colorado 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None identified, but the Homeland Security Department says Colorado was one of 21 states probed for vulnerabilities by the Russians.

Security enhancements since: The state is considered a model and was tackling election vulnerabilities before Russia's attempts. It was the first state to conduct rigorous post-election audits. Election officials take part in security training.

Voting paper trail: State-of the-art election machines have recently been deployed statewide. All use paper ballots or generate a voter-verifiable paper record.

Spending federal grants: To enhance technology and security in election systems, including improving risk-limiting audits and hiring IT officials.

Quote: "This was a scan," the GOP secretary of state in 2016, Wayne Williams, says in downplaying the Russian visits to state election sites. "It happens hundreds, if not thousands of times per day."

Florida

Florida 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: Yes, and it was not disclosed until special counsel Robert Mueller's report in April. In a follow-up meeting, FBI and Homeland Security officials told GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis that voter registration systems were breached in two counties, but he wasn't told which ones. This summer the Senate Intelligence Committee raised the number of counties to four, but their identities remains officially undisclosed. No votes were affected by the hacking, authorities said.

Security enhancements since: All 67 counties are now equipped with an intrusion detection system. The state was one of the first to have all its counties signed up for an alert and information sharing system. In his budget proposed last month for the year beginning next July, DeSantis is asking for $6.6 million for election security including the hiring of 10 cybersecurity experts.

Voting paper trail: Paper ballots are required and in use statewide.

Spending federal grants: To modernize voting systems and upgrade the security of the state's voter registration system.

Quote: "When it comes to meddling in elections, we expect Vladimir Putin to keep secrets from the American public. We don't expect the U.S. government to behave like the Kremlin," the Orlando Sentinel wrote in an editorial complaining about federal officials refusing to identify the hacked counties.

Georgia

Georgia 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None identified, although last year's federal indictment of several Russian operatives stated that in October 2016 they "visited the websites of certain counties in Georgia, Iowa and Florida to identify vulnerabilities."

Security enhancements since: All the state's electronic voting machines are on track to get replaced before the March 24 presidential primary.

Voting paper trail: The new voting equipment prints out paper ballots, providing a way to audit election results.

Spending federal grants: Mostly for the new voting machines.

Quote: "I realize in an advanced-technology society that hackers never sleep and therefore nor can we. It is a constant battle to ensure the security of our voter database and election machines," said GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Iowa

Iowa 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None identified, although an indictment spawned by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation said Russian operatives went looking for election system vulnerability in the state.

Security enhancements since: The voter registration database has been replaced and security warning sensors have been attached to state election computers.

Voting paper trail: Paper ballots are the rule in all 99 counties.

Spending federal grants: To help pay for the new registration database, establish a two-factor access system for that system and to provide cybersecurity training for election officials.

Quote: "The Russians didn't hack a single vote, but they hacked our minds" last time, said GOP Secretary of State Paul Pate. "If they sow doubt about the integrity of our elections, they will disenfranchise voters."

Michigan

Michigan 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None confirmed, but researchers found some patterns in the presidential voting that suggested possible interference.

Security enhancements since: The voter registration database has been modernized and touch-screen machines have been replaced with hand-marked ballots that are scanned.

Voting paper trail: Paper ballots are used statewide.

Spending federal grants: To improve the state's voter registration database and to provide funding and resources statewide for the completion of detailed election system security assessments at the state, county and local level.

Quote: "The threats to our elections did not end in 2016, and they will continue to evolve, and we must be prepared," said Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

Minnesota

Minnesota 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None uncovered, although this was one of the 21 states the Department of Homeland Security later identified as being targeted by Russians.

Security enhancements since: A cyberdefense team, including the secretary of state and the Minnesota National Guard, has been created to look for and address vulnerabilities.

Voting paper trail: Paper is the only type of ballot that gets used.

Spending federal grants: To hire a cybersecurity expert to help local officials, install software to warn of potential attacks, require an extra level of security for access to election computer systems and upgrade the state voter registration database.

Quote: "The plan is good, and the fundamentals of our system are good as well," Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon said of the 2020 preparations. "We think we will have a secure election, but there is never any guarantee of any outcome."

Nevada

Nevada 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None has come to light.

Security enhancements sinc e: All county election offices joined cybersecurity program offered by the nonprofit Center for Internet Security.

Voting paper trail: Voter-verifiable paper records are generated by the machines in all 16 counties.

Spending federal grants: To purchase new voting equipment, improve election auditing procedures and bolster security for the voter registration database.

Quote: "When it comes to security, oftentimes people are your weakest link," said Wayne Thorley, deputy secretary of state for elections. "It's important to have that ongoing training."

New Hampshire

New Hampshire 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None has come to light.

Security enhancements since: Security training has been conducted for the town and city clerks who administer elections.

Voting paper trail: Paper ballots are used statewide.

Spending federal grants: To hire a firm to assess the vulnerability of the state to election hacking and to install software that can provide a warning of an attempted attack.

Quote: "We strongly believe that elections are the purview of the states and that states should run their own elections," Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan said. "The concerns we've had in the past with the federal government is not necessarily their involvement but the way the involvement seems to have occurred. We just want to make sure that what they're offering and what we might accept doesn't somehow lead to a federalization of the election process."

North Carolina

North Carolina 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None has been revealed, although investigations continue. This summer the Department of Homeland Security agreed to conduct an inspection of election equipment supplied by one of the state's vendors, Florida-based VR Systems, whose system was targeted by Russian hackers in 2016. VR Systems laptops used for checking in voters at polling places listed some as having already voted.

Security enhancements since: Additional post-election auditing measures are being prepared for use next year and the state's main election information system will be upgraded. Also, a chief information security position is being created.

Voting paper trail: Machines that generate a voter-verifiable paper record are deployed at polling places statewide.

Spending federal grants: To modernize state election management system and to improve post-election audits.

Quote: "We want all the voters to know all the steps we're taking to ensure fair and accurate elections, so voters will be confident that their vote counts," Board of Elections Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell said of her office's efforts to publicize the coming election system security improvements.

Ohio

Ohio 2016 electoral votes

Hacking in 2016: None identified, but the state made the Homeland Security Department's roster of 21 known to have been checked for vulnerabilities by the Russians.

Security enhancements since: That state has made a number of upgrades: new voting machines; grants to counties to complete election security projects; legislation signed in October to promote more resilience in case of cyberattacks on election systems and to establish a chief information security officer in the secretary of state's office.

Voting paper trail: Machines that generate a voter-verifiable paper record are now in use across the state.

Spending federal grants: To conduct election security assessments for each county, buy devices to detect computer hacking attempts, expand cybersecurity training and improve the security of the voter registration database.

Quote: "Imagine looking out the window and seeing foreign paratroopers parachuting into your town," said Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose. "We wouldn't tell a community, 'You're on your own — your sheriff's department can fight off that threat.' Well likewise, in the online world, we can now respond with Ohio's best cyber warriors, so these counties and cities have the support they need."

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: None identified, but the state is on the Homeland Security Department's list of 21 where Russia went in search of election system vulnerabilities.

Security enhancements since: Counties were ordered to boost voting system safeguards, including by having devices that can detect hacking attempts. And the state is replacing almost all its touch-screen voting equipment.

Voting paper trail: Electronic machines that generate a paper record of each ballot are being purchased, with a goal of getting them installed in all 67 counties by November.

Spending federal grants: To buy and deploy the new voting booths.

Quote: "The Department of State has worked diligently over the past two years to increase election security in Pennsylvania and keep pace with the latest advances in cybersecurity," said the Democrat in charge of the office, Kathy Boockvar.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin 2016 electoral votes

https://mapchart.net/

Hacking in 2016: There has been lots of innuendo but little proof. The Homeland Security Department says Wisconsin was among 21 states targeted by the Russian government but not penetrated. And two further attempts were made but neither succeeded. NBC News reported in 2018 that the state was among seven whose systems were compromised but that report was disputed, and no hard evidence has been revealed.

Security enhancements since: Officials are working on numerous areas including planning additional election safeguards and readying responses to attacks. The state has also launched a security training program for county and municipal election officials.

Voting paper trail: All polling places have voting machines that generate a voter-verifiable paper record.

Spending federal grants: To hire several additional information technology staffers to work on election security, develop stronger security to prevent hacking and provide additional security training to election officials.

Quote: "Defending democracy here in the state of Wisconsin is all our responsibility and something we take really seriously," said Meagan Wolfe, administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. "None of us are going to stand for anybody compromising our democracy."


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less