The next vulnerable election
Asked during a joint appearance with Vladimir Putin on Friday whether he would tell the Russian despot not to interfere in the 2020 election, President Trump quickly replied in the affirmative and turned to his counterpart to say, “Don’t meddle in the election, please.” Trump’s smirk and inflection said more than his words: The demand could hardly have been more perfunctory or less sincere.
Americans should unfortunately be well past shock and dismay on this point. Trump, after all, publicly invited Russian interference in the 2016 election. Moreover, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report details a concerted, criminal plot to sway the race in Trump’s favor that he and his minions tolerated, welcomed and encouraged. Trump went on to consistently deny the reality of Russian meddling, suggesting that he trusted Putin’s analysis more than that of U.S. intelligence agencies and, in a recent interview, that he would accept foreign support again.
This isn’t academic. Sen. Ron Wyden, DOre., a member of the Intelligence Committee, told the Washington Post last week that foreign interference in the 2020 election “is going to make 2016 look like small potatoes.” FBI Director Christopher Wray told a Senate committee in May that “we anticipate in 2020 the threat being even more challenging than it has been,” while a January intelligence assessment predicted more sophisticated attacks by Russia, China and others, noting, “We expect our adversaries ... to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other’s experiences, suggesting the threat landscape could look very different in 2020.” Mueller concluded his only brief statement to date on his investigation “by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.”
Top national security officials insist election integrity is a high priority, but there is evidence that their boss’ posture is having a predictably counterproductive effect. Ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was reportedly advised not to bring up the subject of Russian meddling in the president’s presence. And California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told Politico last week that election security is being undermined by insufficient federal funding and presidential rhetoric alike, including Trump’s recent reiteration of his false claim that “a million” questionable votes were cast in California in 2016.
Election security legislation sponsored by Wyden and other Democratic senators would require paper ballots, audits and cybersecurity standards and allocate $750 million to the states to help with costs. The House last week passed legislation championed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, DSan Jose, requiring paper ballots and offering a similar level of funding. Also last week, presidential contender Elizabeth Warren introduced a more ambitious election security plan that entails a federal takeover of equipment and standards for national elections, allocating $20 billion over 10 years and providing modern machines with paper ballots. “This is a national security threat,” the Massachusetts senator wrote, “and three years after a hostile foreign power literally attacked our democracy, we’ve done far too little to address it.”
Unfortunately, the immediate future of all such efforts looks dim. Lofgren’s bill got only one Republican vote Thursday, and a separate election security bill by another Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, was blocked in the Republicancontrolled Senate two days earlier. The prospects for more secure elections may depend on the outcome of another vulnerable one.