Securing the Vote Protecting American Democracy (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 13-22
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
It must be cor rectly counted and reported."2 D uring the 2016 presidential election, America's election infrastruc ture was targeted by a foreign government.3 According to assess ments by members of the U.S. Intelligence Community,4 actors sponsored by the Russian government "obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards."5 While the full 1 Reynolds v.
|
From page 14... ...
voting infrastructure also were accompanied by directed social media campaigns spreading disinformation that sought to divide the American electorate and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. As former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden observed in testimony to the committee that authored this report, these efforts represented part of a sustained campaign to discredit Western countries and institutions and specifically "Western democratic processes and the American election."6 The Russian campaign represents an unsettling development that adds greatly to the technical and operational challenges facing election administrators.
|
From page 15... ...
In early January 2017, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson observed that, "Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law." In early 2017, the nation's election systems were given critical infrastructure status.9 Since the 2000 election, election infrastructure has been a focus of attention due to concerns about aging and insecure voting equipment, nadequate i poll worker training, insufficient numbers of voting machines and pollbooks, deficient voter registration information systems, and inadequate verification procedures for votes cast. Long before concerns about Russian interference surfaced, state and local election administrators had been forced to reevaluate and modernize the operation of voting systems10 in the wake of incidents such as the "hanging chad" debacle in the 2000 presidential election and long lines that occurred in some jurisdictions in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections.
|
From page 16... ...
ballot was adopted by most of the states in the 1890s, many Americans voted in public, sometimes casting their votes orally, with no voting booths or other means of protecting the confidentiality of an individual's vote.14 (See Figure 1-1.) 11 Decentralization allows voting technologies to be adapted to meet local needs, laws, and traditions.
|
From page 17... ...
elections are administered by thousands of jurisdictions. Elections encompass both highly visible contests, such as the presidential election, and contests to elect minor local officials.
|
From page 18... ...
Census Bureau, "Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration Supplement," 2016 and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, "2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey" (EAVS)
|
From page 19... ...
Two national bipartisan commissions, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform and the Commission on Federal Election Reform, followed a long-standing tradition of assembling panels of notable politicians, academics, and public intellectuals to study national crises and propose reforms. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, which conducted its work in 2001, was chaired by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.17 The report of the Ford-Carter Commission, titled "To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process," issued several recommendations concerning voter registration, election systems, and election operations.
|
From page 20... ...
, an independent bipartisan federal agency, to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration research and information and to disburse federal funds to states for the replacement of antiquated voting systems and the improvement of election administration; mandated that states create centralized, computerized voting registration systems; and required minimal standards for federal elections.24 In order to facilitate the modernization of election technologies, HAVA authorized a $3 billion appropriation for the purchase of new voting systems. HAVA also gave the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
|
From page 21... ...
election infrastructure, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provided support for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to consider the future of the voting in the United States. In response, the National Academies appointed an ad hoc committee, the Committee on the Future of Voting: Accessible, Reliable, Verifiable Technology, to: 1.
|
From page 22... ...
Over the course of this study, the committee reviewed extensive background materials. It held six meetings where invited experts spoke to the committee about a range of topics including voter registration, voting accessibility, voting technologies and market impediments to technological innovation, cybersecurity, post-election audits, and the education and training of election workers.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.