Albuquerque Journal

The election challenge

Is your county clerk ready for Russian hackers? More than 10,000 jurisdicti­ons face that question going into midterm voting

- BY MATT VASILOGAMB­ROS STATELINE.ORG

WASHINGTON — The weakest link in any local voting system is that one county clerk who has been on the job for three days and may open an email file that could take down the whole system.

The head of every U.S. intelligen­ce agency says Russia attempted to penetrate elections systems nationwide during the 2016 presidenti­al election and will try again during this year’s midterm elections.

In a decentrali­zed election system with more than 10,000 separate jurisdicti­ons, the onus for security is on local officials.

“That keeps me awake at night,” said Nancy Blankenshi­p, the clerk for Deschutes County, Ore.

Blankenshi­p, like thousands of other county clerks, is the chief elections official for her area. It’s not so much the threat of foreign hackers changing votes that concerns Blankenshi­p — Oregon is not only a vote-by-mail state, but also does its ballot counting without an internet connection — it’s the possibilit­y that hacking could undermine public confidence in the system.

The major threats

There are three major local cybersecur­ity threats during elections, said Maurice Turner, a senior technologi­st at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C.:

Hackers could break into statewide, online voter registrati­on databases to either steal personal informatio­n or change names, addresses or party affiliatio­n to create confusion and discourage participat­ion on Election Day.

Hackers could attack a county website, taking it offline so that people could not see results after polls close.

Hackers could take over social media accounts to broadcast false results from official sources, or announce falsely that polls are closing earlier or later than normal.

As election officials conduct primaries and prepare for the midterms in November, they must understand and meet security challenges so voters are confident in the election process, Turner said.

“We know we have an adversary that has a known interest and capability to make that threat a reality.”

All it takes is one clerk clicking on a link in one apparently legitimate email for a hacker to penetrate a county or state system. So-called phishing attempts — where hackers might gain passwords, usernames or personal informatio­n through unwitting officials — are becoming more and more sophistica­ted, Turner said. It’s a race between local informatio­n technology department­s and hackers.

Despite the threat, many local officials are confident in their ability to keep a voting system safe from hackers.

Sara May-Silfee, the director of elections for Monroe County, a community of 170,000 in eastern Pennsylvan­ia, said she knows her county is secure, even if her state was one of 21 states targeted by Russian hackers in 2016.

“I can’t even begin to tell you how they’d hack us,” she said. “Nothing is hooked up to anything. How could anybody hack us? I’m not worried about anything. Sometimes it seems like a lot of hullabaloo.”

Close calls but no breaches

While hacking attempts failed in Pennsylvan­ia, they were successful in Illinois, as hackers in 2016 accessed registrati­on data for as many as 90,000 voters. Officials, though, say the hackers did not erase or modify any records.

Adam Weiner, who served as a poll worker in his South Loop neighborho­od in Chicago during the 2014 midterm elections, said if a voter roll had been compromise­d by hackers, “it would have ground everything to a halt.”

“It was just not questioned that the data there was accurate,” Weiner said. “If we can’t trust the list, how can people vote?”

David Bjerke, the director of elections and general registrar of voters for Falls Church, Va., a Washington suburb, said that if registrati­on informatio­n is changed, voters should still cast provisiona­l ballots, because officials can verify the eligibilit­y of voters by going back to check paper registrati­on records. Voters, he said, should check their registrati­on status well before Election Day. And if the option is available, they should vote by mail or vote early so they can discover a potential problem with time to spare.

According to U.S. officials, Russian hackers have not changed ballot counts. And as more systems move toward paper ballots and away from digital voting machines, the risk of hackers manipulati­ng vote counts decreases.

“At no time was the voting process from a tabulation or count perspectiv­e in jeopardy,” said Chris Chambless, the supervisor of elections for Clay County, Fla. “People hear there was an attempt to change the results of the election. And that was never in play.”

But Chambless, whose county outside of Jacksonvil­le has sophistica­ted network security, is still concerned about “zero-day malware,” viruses so new that security systems cannot detect them. Florida was also targeted by hackers in 2016.

For more than a year now, after designatin­g election infrastruc­ture as critical, the federal government has begun working with states to assess the security of their voting systems. But officials say they need more resources to get cybersecur­ity experts in offices, to increase audits and to update equipment.

A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate, which would provide $386 million in federal grants to state election security, has stalled. The bill’s author, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said in February that more than 40 states rely on a voting system that is at least a decade old.

The U.S. State Department has not spent a dime of the $120 million it was allocated after 2016 to fight Russian election meddling. And for his part, President Donald Trump has not told intelligen­ce agencies to stop Russian attempts to target U.S. election systems.

So, many local and state leaders are tackling security alone. Travis County, Texas, which surrounds Austin, brought in academics to develop a system that encrypts votes and stores them in a secure database. The system would allow for efficient auditing. Similar programs are in place in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and California is looking to replace its aging equipment.

 ?? AMBER ARNOLD/WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL ?? In this Nov. 8, 2016 file photo, voters cast their ballots at the Wil-Mar Neighborho­od Center on the Near East Side of Madison, Wis. In Wisconsin, ID law proved insurmount­able for many voters.
AMBER ARNOLD/WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL In this Nov. 8, 2016 file photo, voters cast their ballots at the Wil-Mar Neighborho­od Center on the Near East Side of Madison, Wis. In Wisconsin, ID law proved insurmount­able for many voters.
 ?? KIICHIRO SATO/ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Voters cast their ballots in Illinois primary elections on March 13 at the city’s new early voting super site in downtown Chicago. In Illinois, attempts by hackers in the summer of 2016 to alter voter registrati­on informatio­n were ultimately...
KIICHIRO SATO/ASSOCIATED PRESS Voters cast their ballots in Illinois primary elections on March 13 at the city’s new early voting super site in downtown Chicago. In Illinois, attempts by hackers in the summer of 2016 to alter voter registrati­on informatio­n were ultimately...
 ?? DAVID GOLDMAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? In this October 2017 photo, James Cabe, right, helps Ed Messer as they vote using new machines at a polling site in Conyers, Ga. Last summer, a security expert found a gaping hole in Georgia’s election management system. The revelation prompted a...
DAVID GOLDMAN/ASSOCIATED PRESS In this October 2017 photo, James Cabe, right, helps Ed Messer as they vote using new machines at a polling site in Conyers, Ga. Last summer, a security expert found a gaping hole in Georgia’s election management system. The revelation prompted a...

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States