This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-spending-bills-glaring-omissions-on-election-security/2019/12/25/24495180-25b4-11ea-ad73-2fd294520e97_story.html
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| There’s a lot to like in Congress’s new election security measures. But there’s a big omission. | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| PRESIDENT TRUMP has signed into law a bundle of election security measures buried in this year’s spending bills. What the package includes says a lot about legislators’ commitment to safeguarding our democracy. What it does not include may say even more. | PRESIDENT TRUMP has signed into law a bundle of election security measures buried in this year’s spending bills. What the package includes says a lot about legislators’ commitment to safeguarding our democracy. What it does not include may say even more. |
| There’s a lot to like in this year’s appropriations agreements, starting with a lump sum for states to bolster critical voting infrastructure. The $425 million Congress is providing in 2020 comes many days late and many dollars short according to experts, who say billions were needed starting at least two years ago. But it’s still an improvement over the $380 million allocated in 2018, and the $0 allocated this past year. These funds will be doled out in grants to states, which can then decide how to use them. | There’s a lot to like in this year’s appropriations agreements, starting with a lump sum for states to bolster critical voting infrastructure. The $425 million Congress is providing in 2020 comes many days late and many dollars short according to experts, who say billions were needed starting at least two years ago. But it’s still an improvement over the $380 million allocated in 2018, and the $0 allocated this past year. These funds will be doled out in grants to states, which can then decide how to use them. |
| The National Defense Authorization Act also includes essential measures, such as allowing state election officials to receive top-secret security clearances. The step will open the road at last to robust information-sharing between the federal and local governments. The same is true for public-private partnerships: The legislation establishes a threat analysis center at the office of the director of national intelligence responsible for coordinating between intelligence officials and technology companies to root out influence campaigns. | The National Defense Authorization Act also includes essential measures, such as allowing state election officials to receive top-secret security clearances. The step will open the road at last to robust information-sharing between the federal and local governments. The same is true for public-private partnerships: The legislation establishes a threat analysis center at the office of the director of national intelligence responsible for coordinating between intelligence officials and technology companies to root out influence campaigns. |
| The legislation mandates a much-needed “whole-of-government” strategy to be devised by multiple agencies with an eye toward deterrence, technical measures to secure critical systems and more. The same agencies are required to produce a range of reports for Congress and the public, from retrospectives on past attacks to rundowns of future vulnerabilities, as well as any incursions from Russia or others the intelligence community identifies ahead of elections. | The legislation mandates a much-needed “whole-of-government” strategy to be devised by multiple agencies with an eye toward deterrence, technical measures to secure critical systems and more. The same agencies are required to produce a range of reports for Congress and the public, from retrospectives on past attacks to rundowns of future vulnerabilities, as well as any incursions from Russia or others the intelligence community identifies ahead of elections. |
| All this leaves open a question: What happens when the money is given out, the strategy devised and the reporting completed? Congress did not impose any rules to ensure states procure systems that are secure and auditable, even though a consensus exists on the most statistically effective and secure way to check that results haven’t been tampered with. Also left on the cutting-room floor, despite clearing the Senate by a voice vote, was the Deter Act, which would have triggered automatic sanctions on meddling countries. | All this leaves open a question: What happens when the money is given out, the strategy devised and the reporting completed? Congress did not impose any rules to ensure states procure systems that are secure and auditable, even though a consensus exists on the most statistically effective and secure way to check that results haven’t been tampered with. Also left on the cutting-room floor, despite clearing the Senate by a voice vote, was the Deter Act, which would have triggered automatic sanctions on meddling countries. |
| These omissions are especially ominous in light of a signing statement from Mr. Trump that suggests his administration may object to the release of some of those reports on who is interfering and how. | These omissions are especially ominous in light of a signing statement from Mr. Trump that suggests his administration may object to the release of some of those reports on who is interfering and how. |
| Congress has made bipartisan progress on a subject that never should have been partisan in the first place. The task ahead is to replace the remaining uncertainty in this country’s election-security regime with certainty — the sort that can stand up even to a president who has little interest in acting to protect the elections of the country he leads. | Congress has made bipartisan progress on a subject that never should have been partisan in the first place. The task ahead is to replace the remaining uncertainty in this country’s election-security regime with certainty — the sort that can stand up even to a president who has little interest in acting to protect the elections of the country he leads. |
| Read more: | Read more: |
| The Post’s View: A simple step every state could take to safeguard elections | The Post’s View: A simple step every state could take to safeguard elections |
| Brian Klaas: Trump is holding election security hostage | Brian Klaas: Trump is holding election security hostage |
| The Post’s View: Republicans need to get on board with this measure to secure our elections | The Post’s View: Republicans need to get on board with this measure to secure our elections |
| Michael McFaul: A high-level Senate report confirms it: Our elections still aren’t safe | Michael McFaul: A high-level Senate report confirms it: Our elections still aren’t safe |
| Michael Chertoff and Grover Norquist: We need to hack-proof our elections. An old technology can help. | Michael Chertoff and Grover Norquist: We need to hack-proof our elections. An old technology can help. |
Previous version
1
Next version