Election security cash may have little effect

ELECTION security has been a focus for years now, especially since foreign interference via hacking attacks was noted during the 2016 presidential election. But government’s typical “throw money at the problem” solution is living up to stereotype.

Since the “hanging chad” fiasco of Florida’s 2000 presidential election, Congress has appropriated about $4 billion via the Help America Vote Act to help states upgrade election systems. This has paid for some needed improvements but Steve Miller, writing for RealClearInvestigations.com, finds much money has also been wasted.

Doug Jones, a professor of computer science at the University of Iowa who has studied voting technology for decades, tells Miller that officials “are finally taking the hacking threat seriously,” but the way states are spending election-security funds often does little to achieve cybersecurity goals.

In several states, Miller writes, officials are using federal cash to train poll workers on voting technology, “a task that is already addressed extensively as part of any contract to buy voting machinery.” Officials in Washington, D.C., plan to use $150,000 to hire temporary poll workers, something the district did prior to receipt of the federal money. Among other things in Florida, federal funding will pay for physical security at election sites, which does nothing to deter cyberattacks. Florida officials also bought 1,750 iPad minis for poll workers to check in voters, and North Dakota, Wisconsin and West Virginia made similar purchases. Miller notes election experts say iPads are “easily hacked.”

Of $380 million in federal funds given to state governments to improve election security this year, $78.1 million is going to the vague budget-line item “all other costs.”

The record of Help America Vote Act spending prior to the recent cybersecurity focus is also riddled with questionable choices. A 2017 audit of New Hampshire’s HAVA spending found $1 million was improperly spent on an addition to the state’s archives and records building.

In other states, officials couldn’t find valid ways to spend Help America Vote Act funds. New Hampshire has spent less than 50 percent of HAVA funds it received. Michigan had $30 million in HAVA funds sitting untapped for about a decade before it finally was spent last year. Between 2002 and 2010, Vermont spent less than 5 percent of its HAVA funds.

It’s to the credit of officials in those states that they didn’t misspend the cash, but that doesn’t mean the federal appropriation was therefore a good investment.

A 2015 report by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Office of Inspector General reviewed Oklahoma’s use of HAVA funds from 2003 to 2013. For the most part, Oklahoma officials used the money appropriately, but the report found state officials improperly “withdrew approximately $10 million from the Election Fund in December 2009” to plug state budget holes. The money, removed without the consent of election officials, was later repaid with interest.

While the HAVA program has funded needed election improvements in many cases, the abuses highlighted by RealClearInvestigations show that “spending more” doesn’t automatically translate into “making things better.”