Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A small burst of bipartisan Hill activity to combat election hacking

A small burst of bipartisan Hill activity to combat election hacking

The Senate passed legislation Wednesday that would make it a federal crime to hack into a voting system used in a congressional or presidential election.

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Members of Congress in both parties are taking some clear if limited steps this week toward protecting the country, and their own campaigns, from hackers out to disrupt the next election.

Next to easing access to the polls and otherwise enhancing the right to vote, protecting against the sort of foreign interference that marred the 2016 balloting is top of mind for those who say boosting confidence in the electoral system is essential to restoring democracy.

To that end, the Senate unexpectedly passed legislation Wednesday night that would make it a federal crime to hack into any voting systems used in a congressional or presidential election.

The voice vote came after minimal debate, meaning Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was persuaded by fellow Republicans to permit at least an occasional narrow exception to his decision to block election policy legislation. McConnell has labeled many of the proposals as unnecessary, and he's keenly aware that President Trump views legislation designed to correct shortcomings in the system as implicitly questioning his 2016 victory.


In this case, however, the bill was the handiwork of one of his most prominent turnabout GOP allies in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It is actually the second election security measure the Senate has passed this summer, following a bipartisan voice vote in June for a bill denying visas to anyone even suspected of meddling in an American election.

The debate was more polarized when the House Foreign Affairs Committee considered similar legislation on Wednesday. In the end, the Democratic majority pushed through a bill that would prevent anyone implicated in 2016 election interference from entering the United States and ordering any suspects already in the country to leave. Republicans wanted the bill only to restrict entry to meddlers in future elections.

Those some Republicans, however, were expected to move soon to bolster the cybersecurity forces being deployed on 2020 House GOP campaigns.

Officials at the party's political organization, the National Republican Congressional Committee, told The Washington Post they would be making their own technology experts available to train people to spot suspicious online activity and patch vulnerabilities in their campaign software — and would pay for a cybersecurity company to monitor and respond to suspicious activity on the computer networks of any GOP incumbent or party nominee who asks for the help.

The move by the NRCC, which says it was hacked a few months before the 2018 vote, will increase pressure on the Democrats' congressional campaign organizations to do likewise.

Those groups has been offering advice, but not people or software, to candidates in the three years since Russia hacked into email accounts belonging to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — leaking material that was damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign and beneficial to Trump.

On Wednesday, Microsoft said that since last August it had sent more than 740 notifications to political party organizations, campaigns and democracy-focused nonprofits that use its free cybersecurity services, warning that they had been targeted by foreign government hackers. Most of the attempted infiltrations, the company said, were from Iran, North Korea and Russia.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

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