Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

No ballot box is safe: Volunteers hacked into all 100 voting machine types they went after

Hacking voting systems

Hackers, academics and military experts like these were among those who spent three days hacking into all the voting equipment in wide use across the country.

Air Force Tech. Sgt. R.J. Biermann

It wasn't the kind of test that you hope produces a perfect score. But hackers, technology geeks, academics and others were 100 for 100 this summer in their attempts to infiltrate and compromise an enormous array of voting machines using all sorts of technologies.

Their astonishing results will only boost the widespread anxiety among election security experts that American election systems remain widely vulnerable to hacking and Washington is not doing nearly enough to shrink the risks ahead of next year's presidential contest.


The total failure of voting hardware to ward off intrusion was revealed in a report last week summarizing the third Voting Machine Hacking Village, a three-day hack-a-thon held in Las Vegas in August as part of Def Con 27, one of the world's largest hacker conferences.

The participants either found new ways to break into the machines this year or replicated already published methods that could be used to alter stored vote tallies and change ballots displayed to voters.

"As disturbing as this outcome is, we note that it is at this point an unsurprising result," the report states.

The first such hacking village, in 2017, took on 20 types of voting devices. The second, last year, targeted more than 30 brands of equipment.

The equipment broken into included touchscreens, optical scan paper voting devices, paper ballot marking devices and electronic poll books — all the technologies that are currently in widest use by the more than 5,000 local jurisdictions that conduct our elections.

The volunteer intruders gained access in most cases through external interfaces accessible to voters or precinct workers.

Despite these vulnerabilities, the report's authors said some of the equipment is still viable for use in elections as long as there are "rigorous post-election audits." Legislation to mandate such audits is in a tall stack of election security bills that remains stalled in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says none of those policy measures is necessary even though he has agreed to support $250 million in federal spending to protect the 2020 balloting from outside interference.

Attention has been focused on the vulnerability of the voting systems in the United States since Russian intelligence agents attempted to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russian interference found that operatives attempted to hack into voting systems around the country and were successful in gaining access to a voter registration database in Illinois and to computers of some election officials in Florida.

The Voting Village report also includes a series of recommendations for improving security ahead of the 2020 elections, almost all of which are also being pushed by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. They include mandating post-election audits and the use of machines that generate a paper trail, and increasing funding to help local election officials protect their IT infrastructure.

How Hackers Can Target Voting Machines | NBC News Now

NBC News' technology correspondent Jacob Ward gives an inside look into how hackers can target voting systems with ease.


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