State election officials often fly under the radar, and many prefer it that way.
Now they are being thrust into the spotlight by an unusual records request from President Donald Trump’s election-integrity commission, along with an intensifying debate over cybersecurity.
And, on both fronts, tensions have arisen with federal authorities.
U.S. and state officials both say they want fair and accessible elections. But state officials described frustrations as the two sides debate the best way to cooperate.
“These federal efforts are causing a lot of alarm at the state level, particularly for chief election officials,” said Kay Stimson, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan National Association of Secretaries of State. “It’s bipartisan,” she added.
On July 19, the election-integrity commission, formally known as the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, held its first meeting in Washington, D.C. The panel’s chairman is Vice President Mike Pence .
Mr. Trump has claimed that voter fraud was the reason Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 election. Independent experts say no evidence supports that claim.
Last month, before the panel’s meeting in Washington, state officials of both parties criticized its request for voters’ personal information, to the extent permitted by state law, sent in a letter to all 50 states by commission vice chairman Kris Kobach.
Several states said their laws prevented them from providing all the requested information and expressed concerns about privacy and data-sharing. Others said they viewed the request as potential federal interference in what they say is a state matter. Some said that they thought the panel was unwarranted because experts say there isn’t evidence of widespread voter fraud.
“They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mississippi is a great state to launch from,” said Delbert Hosemann, Mississippi Secretary of State and a Republican.
Since then, the commission has asked states to wait on submitting the voter records until U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington issues a ruling in a lawsuit filed by a privacy advocacy group over the panel’s request.
At a meeting of the commission last week, Mr. Trump questioned states’ decisions to hold back information. “If any state does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they are worried about, and I asked the vice president, I asked the commission, what are they worried about?” Mr. Trump said. “There’s something, there always is.”
The commission asked only for information that is in many cases already publicly available and isn’t trying to violate voters’ privacy, said Bill Gardner, New Hampshire Secretary of State and a Democrat, who also is a member on the panel.
Tensions between federal and state authorities are also evident as Washington attempts to help the states guard their election infrastructure against cyberattacks.
Also recently, Department of Homeland Security official Jeanette Manfra said evidence suggests hackers may have targeted election computer systems in several states during the 2016 election, causing alarm in state capitals and Washington about the voting process.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on July 19 that states that refuse federal cybersecurity help for their election systems are “nuts.”
“All of the input I get from all of the states are, ‘We don’t want you involved in our election process,’ ” Mr. Kelly said, in remarks at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.
He added, “I think they’re nuts if they don’t [seek federal help]. But if they don’t want it—the help—they don’t have to ask.”
DHS began offering cybersecurity assistance to state and local officials last August, as U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies detected potential hacking attempts against election systems.
By the November election, 33 states and 36 cities and counties had used DHS tools or sought advice from the agency, Jeh Johnson, the former secretary of homeland security, told the House Intelligence Committee last month.
In January, Mr. Johnson formally designated election systems “critical infrastructure,” which federal officials said would help DHS place a higher priority on election-security efforts. But state election officials said it wasn’t clear how the designation would help them. Several state officials said they are worried states would provide information to DHS but might not get timely intelligence about potential threats in return.
“There is certainly some tension,” said Edgardo Cortés, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections. “This is new for everyone, so it’s going to take some time for everyone to work well together.”
Tre Hargett, Tennessee’s secretary of state, said that Mr. Kelly “made clear the door was open for states to ask for assistance.”
“Secretary Kelly made clear the door was open for states to ask for assistance,” said Mr. Hargett, a Republican. “Offering assistance to states is a much welcome change from the opaque manner in which elections systems were designated as critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security, with little guidance or notice to election officials.”
State officials met with federal representatives earlier this month at a conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Indianapolis. An acting deputy undersecretary at DHS, Robert Kolasky, said the agency was working to answer questions about organizing a “coordinating council” for information-sharing and whether some state officials would be eligible for security clearances to view classified threat information.
Mr. Kolasky, who attended the meeting in Indianapolis, said things hadn’t always gone smoothly as the federal government becomes more active in guarding against hacking in election systems, but said relations are improving.
“I don’t disagree with the characterization of growing pains, but I think we’re on the right track to make real progress in the next couple months,” he said.
Last edited:
