Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How risky is online voting? Very, the federal government says.

Online voting
sorbetto/Getty Images

Three states plan to offer voters with disabilities the option to cast ballots online this fall, but the federal government says this is too risky an endeavor even with all the recommended controls in place.

In an eight-page report sent last week to state officials, four federal agencies analyzed the risks associated with electronic ballot delivery, marking and return. While accessing and completing ballots online can be low-risk, digital ballot submissions pose significant cybersecurity concerns, the report said.


Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia plan to use a new system by the Seattle-based company Democracy Live to allow electronic voting for military and overseas voters as well as those with disabilities. The report says these states should limit the online system to "voters who have no other means to return their ballot and have it counted."

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Election Assistance Commission, the FBI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology collaborated on the report to identify potential security risks at each step in the voting process.

Their warning against allowing any part of the voting process to connect to the internet comes in response to the attempts by Russian operatives to hack into voting systems in the last presidential election.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Although delivering ballots electronically is allowed by all 50 states, this system at best poses information security risks and at worst can result in missing or altered ballot choices, the report said. Risks can be mitigated by implementing proper security controls and verifying voter identity before the ballot may be accessed.

To minimize risks associated with marking ballots electronically, the agencies suggest using an auditable paper trail so voters can print out and verify their selections before submitting their ballot.

Returning a ballot using the internet poses the highest risk, though. Doing so could compromise not only the voter's data and privacy, but also the system's integrity as a whole.

"Securing the return of voted ballots via the internet while ensuring ballot integrity and maintaining voter privacy is difficult, if not impossible, at this time," the agencies reported.

State election officials should provide a way for voters to verify the status of their ballots after submitting them, the report recommends.

Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and North Dakota currently allow military voters in "hostile zones" to use a web-based portal to submit ballots. West Virginia is the only state with a mobile voting app for people with disabilities.

Twenty-six states, plus D.C., allow some voters to return their ballots via email or fax, but these methods aren't perfect either, the report says. Fax machines typically have no security protections and emails are often subject to cyberattacks.

Election security experts have warned against electronic voting for years because the U.S. does not yet have the technological infrastructure to prevent widespread online ballot interference.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less