Election security investment is a national security imperative
Voters lined up on Election Day at the Scott County Public Library precinct in Georgetown, Nov. 5, 2024. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Arden Barnes)
Last November, the American people made their voices heard at the ballot box. Up and down the ballot, there was a clear mandate for Republican leadership, especially at the federal level. What was also very clear was that the public servants who ran our elections made sure that voters were safe, the process was secure, and that all eligible voters had the opportunity to cast a ballot.
To make all of that happen, time and resources are required. Election workers spend months preparing for election day — they test voting equipment, hire part-time staff and poll workers, determine polling locations, and so much more. And to do all of this, election workers need to have sufficient funding and resources from the local, state and federal levels.
Federal election funding can be a massive help for local election officials. During the first Trump administration, Congress allocated over $400 million in fiscal 2020 for election security funding. Since then, we have seen a steep decline in federal resources dedicated to safeguarding the security of our elections. In fiscal 2024, only $55 million was allocated for protecting our election infrastructure.
This decline in federal investment comes while foreign adversaries have sought to interfere with our elections and destabilize our democracy. With these new cybersecurity threats on the rise, we should be investing more in our election security infrastructure, not less. Regular federal support for election workers will go a long way to bolstering our cybersecurity infrastructure and preventing foreign interference in our democracy.
These federal resources serve other critical functions as well. In addition to boosting our cybersecurity posture, election workers can use federal resources to purchase new equipment, update voter registration systems, provide training to staff and poll workers, and hire additional staff. These additional resources can help jurisdictions count their votes more quickly, so that we don't have to wait a month to find out who controls the U.S. Congress.
One thing that additional resources will not change: It is up to Kentucky's – and other state's — leadership to make decisions about how these resources are spent.
As Congress returns its focus to finalizing the fiscal 2025 budget, I urge my fellow Republicans to appropriate $75 million in election funding, the level of investment unanimously advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. As they did during the first Trump administration, Republican leaders in both chambers should continue to advocate for this funding and show that securing our election infrastructure is a top issue.
As the former secretary of state in Kentucky who is still very involved in elections administration, I am keenly aware of the hard work, effort, and resources that go into running safe and secure elections. As the threats against our democracy become more frequent and sophisticated, Congress must provide the necessary resources to combat these challenges. And with new Republican leadership, now is the time to pass $75 million in election security grants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
In Minnesota, America's Luck Ran Out
Early this morning, a gunman apparently impersonating a police officer targeted two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers in their homes. First, he shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, who were seriously wounded. Law-enforcement officials believe the same gunman then shot Melissa Hortman, who served as Minnesota's speaker of the House from 2019 to 2024. She was killed, along with her husband, Mark. In September 2023, shortly after Donald Trump yet again encouraged direct political violence against his opponents, I wrote this: 'As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck … Eventually, all luck runs out.' That luck has now run out, in an idyllic Minneapolis suburb. Although details are still emerging, law-enforcement officials are searching for a former appointee of Democratic Governor Tim Walz in connection with the killings, which Walz called 'politically motivated.' The gunman reportedly had a manifesto and a list of targets that included the names of other Minnesota politicians as well as abortion providers in the state. Law-enforcement authorities intercepted but were not able to arrest the shooter shortly after he assassinated Hortman. Had they not, it's possible that he would have made his way to the homes of other Minnesota officials, trying to murder them too. Political violence—and assassinations in particular—are notoriously difficult to predict, precisely because the violence is often carried out by 'lone wolf' attackers. Just one deranged zealot is sufficient to carry out an act of consequential violence. In a country of 340 million people and even more guns, there will always be a small pool of potential killers eager to wreak havoc on the political system. That's why researchers who study political violence, including myself, try to understand what elevates or reduces the risk of violence, even if it can never be fully eradicated. In a context such as the United States, three key factors stand out: easy access to deadly weapons, intense polarization that paints political opponents as treasonous enemies rather than disagreeing compatriots, and incitements to political violence from high-profile public figures. When you combine those three social toxins, the likelihood of political violence increases, even as it remains impossible to predict who will be targeted or when attacks might be carried out. Again, law-enforcement officials still don't know the attacker's precise motivations, and trying to draw conclusions from any single act of political violence is foolish. Because they are rare, randomness plays a role in these instances, and many perpetrators are mentally unwell. But consider this comparison. Although we can't say that climate change caused a specific hurricane, we know that climate change produces stronger hurricanes. Similarly, we may not be able to draw a direct link from rhetoric to a specific act of violence, but we do know that incitements to violence make killings more likely. The United States has repeatedly refused to do anything about easy access to deadly weapons, despite having, by far, the highest rate of mass killings among developed democracies. As a result, the only feasible levers are reducing polarization and stopping high-profile incitements to commit violence. Instead, during the Trump era, polarization has sharply increased. And over the past decade, Trump himself has been the most dangerous political actor in terms of routinely inciting violence against his opponents, including against specific politicians who could become assassination targets. Such incitements matter. When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that encourages violence, attacks become more likely. From the April 2023 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on America's terrifying cycle of extremist violence From the beginning of his first campaign for president, Trump encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers at his rallies, saying he'd cover their legal bills if they ' knock the crap ' out of them. He floated the ideas of shooting looters, shooting shoplifters, and shooting migrants crossing the border. Trump also targeted the press, sharing a variety of violent memes involving specific outlets. He endorsed Greg Gianforte, now the governor of Montana, specifically because he violently attacked a reporter. ('Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type,' Trump said, to cheers.) And, at the end of his first term, Trump's speech on the National Mall on January 6 doused an already incendiary environment, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Trump's rhetorical incitements to violence extend to politicians, too. He has called his political opponents ' human scum.' Even more worrying are Trump's endorsements of violence against specific Democrats. In 2016, he suggested that maybe there was something that ' Second Amendment people ' could do to deal with Hillary Clinton. In October 2022, when a QAnon disciple who had peddled Trump's lies about the 2020 election attempted to assassinate then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and fractured her husband's, Paul's, skull with a hammer—Trump made light of the incident. (His son Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and a pair of underwear like the ones Paul Pelosi had been wearing during the attempted murder, with the caption: ' Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.') Less than a year later, Trump openly mused that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed. When such language becomes normalized, deranged individuals may interpret rhetoric as marching orders. In 2018, Cesar Sayoc, a die-hard Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to people who frequently appeared as targets in Trump's tweets. (Nobody died, but only because Sayoc wasn't skilled at making bombs.) In 2020, Trump tweeted that people should 'LIBERATE MICHIGAN!' in response to its COVID policies. Thirteen days later, armed protesters entered the state capitol building. A right-wing plot to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was narrowly foiled months later. It also matters that Trump is one of the biggest vectors for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation in the United States. When a major political figure disseminates lies about shadowy plots and treasonous acts carried out by the 'human scum' on the other side of the aisle, that can increase the likelihood of violence. (Several followers of QAnon, which Trump has repeatedly amplified himself, have carried out political violence based on the conspiracy theory.) Trump often makes a brief show of condemning political violence—as he has with the killings in Minnesota. While trying to play both the arsonist and the firefighter on social media, his actions in power make clear where his true loyalties lie, sending much stronger signals. One of his first official acts at the start of his second term was to pardon or grant clemency to people convicted for their involvement in the January 6 riots, including those who had violently attacked police officers and were targeting lawmakers. In recent weeks, Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning the far-right zealots who sought to kidnap Governor Whitmer in Michigan. The message is unmistakable: Use violence against my political opponents and there may be a pardon waiting. Joe Biden abused his pardon power to protect his son from tax-evasion charges. Donald Trump abused his pardon power to condone those who attacked cops and hoped to murder politicians. Both abuses were bad. But they are not the same. Trump, more than anyone, should be aware of the risks of political violence. After all, he narrowly escaped an assassin's bullet last summer. He would be dead, but for a gust of wind or a slightly different tilt of his head. But when that assassination attempt happened, Biden didn't mock it; Kamala Harris didn't float the idea of pardoning the assassin; and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn't previously mused that Trump should be executed, or that he was human scum, or that Jeffries would pay the bills of people who used violence against Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on the risks of political violence. Democrats and Republicans in public office are targets who face credible threats in a hyper-polarized political climate. Likewise, supporters of Democrats and supporters of Republicans are both capable of carrying out political violence. (There have also been a small number of statements by Democrats that could be interpreted as incitements to violence, including some by Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Dan Goldman of New York. Goldman apologized for his phrasing the following day.) The difference is that only one party is led by someone who uses his megaphone to routinely normalize and absolve acts of political violence. There is overwhelming evidence of this asymmetric rhetoric between those in party leadership. The United States is a fraying society, torn apart by polarization, intense disagreement, and ratcheting extremism. Cheap weapons of mass murder are readily available. And into that tinder box, Trump adds incendiary rhetoric. We don't know when or where the deadly conflagration will strike next, but more flames will no doubt come. We may still be shocked by tragic acts of political violence like the assassination in Minnesota, but we can no longer feign surprise.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military parade kick offs in US capital as protesters decry Trump
Tanks, troops and marching bands assembled in the US capital for a massive parade of American military power requested by President Donald Trump, a show that was met by thousands of Americans around the country displaying another kind of power: protest. Hours before the parade honouring the Army's 250th anniversary was set to start, demonstrators turned out in streets and parks around the nation to decry the Republican president as a dictator or would-be king. They criticised Trump for using the military to respond to those protesting his deportation efforts and for sending tanks, thousands of marching troops and military aircraft out for show in the US capital. In Washington DC, anti-war protesters unfurled signs that said 'Homes not drones' not far from a display of armoured vehicles, helicopters and military-grade equipment on the National Mall set up to commemorate the US Army's birthday. Bowls of red, white and blue punch were ladled out to attendees, along with slices of a large Army-themed cake that uniformed officials cut with a sabre. Vendors outside the festival sold gear marking the military milestone. Others hawked Trump-themed merchandise. Mr Trump has been wanting a military parade in Washington DC ever since he watched one in France with tanks, soldier and jets overhead in 2017. His dream is set to finally be realised on a day that coincides with his 79th birthday and Flag Day, after organisers tacked the parade onto the line-up for the Army celebration. Mr Trump got regular updates on the planning and made requests for aircraft and hardware to capture the might of the military. The military procession was set to step off from the Lincoln Memorial later on Saturday, under the threat of stormy weather and to the accompaniment of protests elsewhere in the city. Mr Trump brushed off the possibility of both disruptions, with a social media post on Saturday morning that said the 'great military parade' would be on 'rain or shine'. The protests, he said earlier, 'will be met with very big force'. Hours ahead of the parade, crowds of protesters with anti-Trump signs marched toward the White House, escorted by police vehicles and officers on bicycles. Some held a giant banner that read: 'TRUMP MUST GO NOW'. The parade has drawn criticism for its price tag of up to 45 million dollars and the possibility that the lumbering tanks could tear up city streets. The US Army has taken a variety of steps to protect the streets, including laying metal plates along the route. About 6 in 10 Americans said Saturday's parade was 'not a good use' of government money. The vast majority of people, 78%, said they neither approve nor disapprove of the parade overall, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs Research. Saturday's event is expected to include about 6,600 soldiers, 50 helicopters and 60-ton M1 Abrams battle tanks, as well as possibly 200,000 attendees and heightened security to match.
30 minutes ago
Missouri governor signs stadium aid package intended to keep the Chiefs and Royals in the state
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a legislative package on Saturday, approved by Missouri lawmakers earlier in the week, that includes hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid intended to persuade the Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state. Kehoe, a Republican, had called lawmakers into special session and they approved of the package Wednesday. The Chiefs and Royals currently play at the Truman Sports Complex on the east side of Kansas City, where Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium share parking facilities. But their leases with Jackson County, Missouri, expire in January 2031, and the two franchises have been trying to decide the best route forward for the past several years. Last year, Jackson County voters defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of Arrowhead Stadium — the home of the Chiefs — and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. The slow movement by those on the Missouri side of the state line in supporting the franchises prompted lawmakers in Kansas to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The offer from Kansas is scheduled to expire June 30, and both teams have indicated they will hope to have a plan formulated by then. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs have floated plans for a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. The Royals have insisted all along that they intend to build a replacement for Kauffman Stadium. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. Disaster relief tied to stadium funding had widespread support. On Wednesday, Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described to lawmakers how she had witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' The Chiefs, in a statement to The Associated Press, described the legislative vote this week as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in Missouri. The Royals described the legislation as 'a very important piece of our decision-making process' but made no site-specific commitment. 'Our focus remains the same: to prioritize the best interests of our team, fans, partners and regional community as we pursue the next generational home for the Kansas City Royals,' the team said in a statement to the AP. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. They built their existing Busch Stadium nearly 20 years ago. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' said state Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County. The legislation did face some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy franchise owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.
