Securing America's Electoral Systems

SECURING AMERICA’S ELECTORAL SYSTEMS By Matthew Keating

INTRODUCTION

In the spring 0f 2017, the American public was made aware of the details of the Russian government’s interference with the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, which included the manipulation of online social media accounts, the proliferation of “fake news” websites, and the hacking of major political campaigns, national party organizations, and even voting machine hardware. While there is no evidence that Russia was able to directly manipulate vote counts, the ability of foreign agents to influence American voters through either direct or indirect social and digital manipulation poses a serious A typical electronic threat to the stability and sovereignty of American democracy. voting machine that The issue of election interference was highly politicized for the may be susceptible first two years of the Trump administration. Most recently, the to electronic publishing of the Special Counsel Investigation (or “Mueller Report” interference. as it is commonly known)—which largely exonerated the 2016 Trump Associated Press campaign staff on charges of collusion—may present the most politically viable time in years for Democrats and Republicans to [This is where you come together to address the issue of foreign election interference. will describe the Given the severity of the past and future threats, there is keen image and why it’s interest for the United States House Intelligence Committee to devise relevant for your some kind of solution which would allow both individual states and briefing topic.] the federal government to combat foreign interference ahead of the [Image Source Here upcoming 2020 Presidential elections.

HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS

EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE

Historical Development On January 6, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) published an unprecedented report that synthesized analysis from every agency within the American intelligence community, including from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security, about how Russia interfered in the 2016 election, in part by targeting the systems we use to run our elections. The report cited “Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order” as the country’s primary motivation to execute a targeted Election “influence campaign.” Although the United States and Russia have interference can be each engaged in “influence campaigns” in one other’s national either direct elections for decades, the report cited the actions undertaken by manipulation of vote Russia in 2016 as “a significant escalation in directness, level of counts or more activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.” insidious “voter Among other actions, the report highlights the Russian hacking persuasion” through of key political targets and subsequent leaking of the information. fake news, These hacks affected both major US political parties, and the stolen manipulation of information from the hacks galvanized media outlets to spread content, and hacking. propaganda. The report also found that “Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple [...] state or local electoral boards,” although the Department of Homeland Security maintains that the “Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in the final vote tallying process.” Scope of the Problem Electoral Interference: A Tale of Two Nations Although the scale of Russian electoral interference was unprecedented in 2016, the practice of electoral interference goes back decades, and both the US and Russia/Soviet Union have committed it. The United States government—specifically, the CIA— launched persuasion campaigns in Soviet satellite nations for decades. Campaigns distributed posters, pamphlets, mailers, and banners for opposition or capitalist-oriented political parties. Intelligence scholar and former CIA operative Loch Johnson told the New York Times: “We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve even just used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.” More recently, in the 2000 Presidential election in Serbia, the United States government funded a successful effort to defeat Slobodan Milosevic, a nationalist politician (who was later convicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes), by providing a Serbian opposition party with American political consultants and 80

tons of stickers delivered by a Washington DC based contractor that featured a clenched-fist symbol that read “He’s finished.” While the United States has used traditional covert campaign support as a method of electoral influence, Russia has made the audacious step of utilizing methods of cyberwarfare, hacking, and promulgation of fake internet news as a 21st century adaption of traditional electoral influence. As the DNI report stated, the revolutionary power of the internet and the increasing velocity of the dissemination of information, as well as the vulnerability of state- regulated digital election machines, make the efficacy and impact of electronic or cyber-based interference more serious than in decades past. Misinformation Campaigns Troll farms – In addition to targeting the physical hardware of local election massive government systems, the Russian government has developed an extensive run complexes that infrastructure or “cyber army” of its own to propagate false pay real human beings information vis-à-vis the internet to foreign audiences. The Russian (government government has built and developed intricate troll farms – employees) to create massive government-run complexes that pay real human beings fake social media (Russian government employees) to create fake social media accounts, content, and accounts and false content (e.g. comments on news articles). A comments. figure from the Eurasia Center estimates the Russian government spends over $400 million dollars annually on these troll farms. According to subsequent intelligence reports, the Russian government created millions of fraudulent social media accounts during the 2016 election that promoted attendance at nearby Trump rallies. The Russian government was also found to have funded online advertisements that promoted anti-Hillary rhetoric and fake information. This grand strategy of coordinating organic social accounts with the dissemination of false information has led to the catchall term of “fake news.” Fake news comprises news, stories or hoaxes created deliberately to misinform or deceive readers. These stories Fake news– news, are often created to influence people’s views, push a political stories or hoaxes agenda, or cause confusion, and they can be a profitable business created to deliberately for online publishers. Fake news articles can deceive people by misinform or deceive looking like trusted websites or using similar names or web readers, often to push addresses to reputable news organizations. a certain political In January 2017, Twitter estimated that more than 1.4 million agenda. users had interacted with Russian propaganda or bots that promoted fake news during the 2016 campaign. In 2018 alone, Twitter deleted approximately 200,000 tweets that were found to have stemmed from accounts linked to these Russian troll farms. Many large internet companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google have been working to combat the spread of fake news after

the DNI report spotlighted their platforms as conduits for Russian propaganda. Similarly, in January 2018, Facebook announced a plan to attempt to highlight "reliable" sources of news whereby users could view the news outlets’ background information, history, and funding sources. While compliance has largely been self-directed by these tech companies, Congress and the Intelligence committee are increasingly looking for ways to codify the regulation and expectations of these tech firms to prevent the distribution of fake news and foreign propaganda. “All Elections Are Local” The United States is unique in that it utilizes a highly decentralized election administration system. The entities responsible for the logistics of running an election, such as The Russian purchasing voting machines, printing voter rolls, and recruiting polls “Internet Research workers, are typically organized at the county, city, or town level. In Agency” in St. general, states are also responsible for certain aspects of elections as Petersburg is widely well, but states may choose to regulate or administer elections using known to be a fake a variety of officials, from the state’s Secretary of State to the news “troll farm” office Lieutenant Governor to an independent Elections Board. location. The result of this irregular, somewhat patchwork system is that Source: Euronews no state administers elections in exactly the same way as another state. Furthermore, there is a deal of variation in election administration even within any given state. Some argue that this decentralized approach serves to promote electoral security; that is, having election hardware, procedures, and voter rolls managed by 50 different states and at countless county and municipal levels makes a centralized attempt at influencing or attacking electoral machines and systems nearly impossible. On the other hand, this system also allows for huge discrepancies in electoral security, funding levels for technology, and identification verification procedures. In many cases, election officials must scramble to secure the necessary funds to maintain their voting systems from already tight municipal and state budgets. Recent Developments (Post-2016) As numerous intelligence reports have stated, Russia’s primary goals for launching its 2016 “influence campaign” were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process and institutions and to denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton by harming her presidential campaign, as Clinton was predicted to continue the Obama administration’s aggressive anti-Russia sanctions policy. Since the release of the DNI report in January 2017, more details have emerged surrounding the extent to which the Russians attempted to infiltrate state and local level voting machines.

The Intercept reported on a leaked National Security Agency document that revealed a “months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against” the voter registration process, “including a private sector manufacturer of devices that maintain and verify the voter According to a rolls” as well as Russian directed spear-phishing attacks against local government organizations and government officials involved in the survey of 274 management of voter registration systems. election Bloomberg News reported that in Illinois, investigators found administrators evidence that Russian cyber intruders tried to directly delete and across 28 states, a alter voter data. The hackers also accessed software designed to be strong majority of used by poll workers on Election Day and, in at least one state, even election officials accessed a campaign finance database. In total, intelligence officials have disclosed that Russian hackers infiltrated election systems in a claim they need total of 39 states. security upgrades Russian officials have repeatedly denied any official government- to voting machines led role in the 2016 US election cyber-attacks, including the DNC but lacked the hacks in the summer before the election. Russian President Vladimir monetary Putin said in recent comments to reporters that criminals or resources to do so. “misguided Patriots” inside the country could have been involved without having been sanctioned or directed by the Russian government. Since the release of these intelligence reports, the United States Senate and House of Representatives have initiated a number of reviews and investigations into Russian election meddling. In June 2017, former FBI Director James Comey warned the Senate Intelligence Committee ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, declaring: “[The Russians] are coming after America […] and they will be back.” Congressional Action Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have viewed this issue as a profound threat to both national security and the maintenance of America’s sovereign democracy. While the investigations of specific White House and campaign staff have become extremely politicized, there is steady bipartisan support to protect America’s electoral systems. On the technical side of the issue, Senators Warner (D-Virginia) and Gardner (R-Colorado) introduced the State Cyber Resiliency Act, in March 2018. The bill requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with state and local governments in administering and awarding a new “State Cyber Resiliency” Grant program to protect critical infrastructure. The new grant program would allow for tens of millions of dollars to go directly to state and local officials looking to purchase new hardware or assess their systems’ technical vulnerabilities. More contentious and undecided, however, is the question of how the government should best address the regulation of large technology companies whose platforms have become conduits for

persuasion and misinformation campaigns by foreign governments. While the House and Senate have had numerous hearings on the issue, and have even brought Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify on the changes Facebook has made in light of the 2018 election, no concrete action or legislation has been passed to regulate what responsibilities these platforms have in combatting fake news. Other Policy Action The United States is not the only country affected by foreign election interference. Throughout the 2017 French presidential elections, there were numerous reports of Russian digital media

In October 2018 the interference in support of Marine Le Pen, a far-right French President of the politician who advocates for closer French ties with Russia. In 2018, European Union the President of the European Union called for a high-level convened a high- conference of all 28 E.U. member states to discuss how to combat level conference of all election interference. The chair of the “E.U. Election Integrity 28 member states to Conference” identified two distinct issues very similar to those in the discuss how best to United States: first, the need to guarantee the security of physical secure future E.U. voting machines and second, the need to combat insidious digital and national persuasion campaigns and fake news which seek to influence voters’ elections minds. The E.U. conference generated a number of policy Source: EU Press Office suggestions for all member states, including establishing an E.U. election security monitoring and policy coordination group, investing more in local-level cyber defenses, and pushing private companies operating in Europe to employ the highest levels of data security and user profile validation as technologically possible.

IDEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS

Conservative View Conservatives by and large support initiatives that would protect States’ rights the United States from foreign electoral intervention. Concrete philosophy – a measures like investing in new, updated technology have seen little commonly held opposition. There is, however, significant hesitancy on the part of conservative belief many Republicans to continue to investigate and publicly “rehash” that policy issues and Russian intervention in the 2016 election, as many conservatives the administration of view it as a means of delegitimizing the President’s right to his government services current office. are best left to local Additionally, conservatives would likely not support any measure officials to handle, that removes or reduces state control of election administration and not the federal because they support a states’ rights philosophy. When it comes government. to elections, Republicans would favor maintaining states’ rights to decide how elections are run in their territory and would likely not support any legislation that centralized elections into one federal

agency. With regards to the potential regulation of tech companies and content that can be posted on the internet as “fake news,” it is likely that many libertarian-oriented Republicans (as well as many liberals) would view such regulations as an infringement on the right to free speech under the First Amendment, as well as an undue government burden on businesses’ rights to operate their private companies as they see fit. Liberal View Democrats are, as expected, extremely upset about reports of substantive Russian interference in the 2016 elections. A month after losing her election, Secretary Hillary Clinton blamed Russian influence as well as FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute Robert Mueller / investigation into her private email server as the two largest factors Special Counsel that led to her electoral defeat in several crucial swing states. Investigation - a Democrats were keen supporters of the Robert Mueller special special independent counsel investigation, which was established to determine Justice Department whether the Trump campaign and White House officials were investigation launched involved with the Russian government’s influence campaign. This in May 2017 by former has led to the politicization of the Russian interference question. FBI director Robert Therefore, Democrats support any and all measures that bring this Mueller into whether issue to prominence. high level Trump and Democrats already had concerns about the power that now White House decentralizing voting administration gives to states long before the officials collaborated Russian influence campaign in 2016. Many Democrats have with the Russian critiqued discrepancies in voting laws and registration practices government. among states as allowing for the implementation of unfair regulations. One such practice is Voter-ID laws. These laws require a photo ID to vote, but there are citizens who might not be able to afford one or have the time to obtain one. Thus, Democrats often support federalizing America’s electoral system to standardize voting practices across the nation. Presidential View While President Trump was initially slow in recognizing the significance of Russian intervention in the 2016 election, he has, in more recent years, identified prior Russian interference as a threat. President Trump openly acknowledges that the Russians did in fact attempt to influence and attack the American electoral system. Furthermore, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has raised the issue in countless meetings with Russian diplomats. President Trump maintains, however, that the effect was negligible and that the entire issue is being politicized and manipulated by Democrats to target his administration. The President, as well as his cabinet members in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State, would likely

support funding security upgrades, such as new hardware and software for election administrators at the state level, but they would prefer to do so in a discreet manner so as not to bring attention to the severity of Russian influence in the President’s first electoral victory.

AREAS OF DEBATE

There are a range of possible solutions that the United States Intelligence Committee could undertake, ranging from increasing funding for state election officials to federalizing national election administrators to regulating the production and dissemination of fake news in America. All the possible solutions come at political and economic costs and are unlikely to be supported by all members of the Committee. Funding Technology Upgrades for Voting Machines, Election Networks, and Campaign Organizations Perhaps the most obvious solution to the question of digital hacking is to increase funding for state-level election security. By funding new machines, election staff, and training programs, the federal government can ensure that every state is at the same level of election integrity. Achieving this goal, however, will be extremely expensive, likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 2-3 years. Even then, state governments are not obliged to accept federal funding and can choose to opt out of receiving the money. Conducting outreach to determine what systems need updating could also take years, as elections are administered by over 4,000 different municipalities and local government entities across the United States. Political Perspectives on this Solution While this approach will cost the federal government millions of dollars, increased funding has garnered support from both sides of the political aisle. The Defending Digital Democracy Project, known as DP3, for example, is a nonpartisan think tank initiative that strongly advocates for increased funding for more secure election hardware and computer systems. DP3 was established in 2017 as a platform for researching ways to protect American voting systems at a local and national level. The project is co-directed by Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, Robby Mook. DP3 has argued that more funding is also needed to assist state level administrators, such as Secretaries of State, who oversee elections, in order to update technology and train staff on the most secure practices to prevent hacking. DP3 has also taken a unique focus on the role of campaign staff and national political organizations like the Democratic National Committee

(DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) in preventing election influencing. DP3 experts argue that campaigns should also be protected from cyber-intrusion, and more training should be given to campaign staff and state and local parties’ IT departments. Federalizing the Administration of Elections A more direct solution that addresses the vast disparities in elections across states would be to centralize America’s voting Companies like system. An example of this would be to establish a federal agency to Googe, Facebook, oversee the maintenance and distribution of election machines, train and Twitter—unlike election staff, and fulfill other election-related duties. The the federal establishment of a federal agency would provide for a much more government—are streamlined and equally funded election infrastructure system across private entities that all 50 states. A centralized system, however, does have several can require users to significant drawbacks. For one, it is much more susceptible to a not post certain single large cyber-attack compared to 50 individual state-level content, such as attacks. Additionally, such a system would require a large allocation fake news. of federal funding. Participation and the right to utilize Political Perspectives on this Solution these platforms, Fully federalizing the American electoral system for all 50 states unlike the press, are would be a huge and politically controversial decision. Conservative a privilege and up members of Congress would likely reject any kind of federalization to the discretion of effort, as such a move would be in direct contradiction to Republican the owners of these emphasis on states’ rights and state autonomy on such issues. companies. At the same time, this solution may most directly and New York Magazine immediately address the issue of disparities amongst state electoral systems, their funding, and their vulnerabilities. Liberal think-tank groups like the Center for American Progress (CAP) have proposed several far-reaching updates to the election system at the local and federal levels. In an August 2017 report, CAP recommended the following changes: states meet minimum federally determined cybersecurity standards for voting systems, voting machines provide paper or hard-copy confirmation to a voter of their recorded choices, states return to paper-based absentee ballots, and certification and extensive testing of all voting missions be required at several points before election day. CAP, however, does not advocate for the full federalization or centralization of the voting system in the United States, stating that “it is within the purvey of states to administer elections.” Combatting Misinformation Campaigns – Regulating Social Media This policy proposal addresses the problem of misinformation, or fake news, endemic to many social media platforms during 2016. It proposes regulating big tech companies and the content allowed on

their sites. Under the First Amendment, Congress is forbidden from imposing restrictions on speech, whether of US citizens or foreigners. The Supreme Court has extended this prohibition from regulating speech to state governments as well. However, companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are privately owned platforms which require users to adhere to their own user policies in exchange of user privileges. Companies, as private organizations, have broad agency to limit content their platforms. While Facebook and Twitter have taken significant action to combat the rise of fake bot accounts spreading false information, Congress could perhaps encourage them to take more forceful action against the proliferation of fake news. Political Perspectives on this Solution While this may be an approach that Republicans and Democrats can support, it would almost certainly be opposed by large tech companies. Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google make billions of dollars yearly off of clickbait engagement, and their Google and business models are almost entirely predicated on expanding their user base through the use of strategic content display algorithms. Facebook Therefore, tech companies would oppose any kind of restriction on collectively spend how content is created and curated on their own systems. As Google $30 million a and Facebook collectively spend $30 million a year lobbying year on lobbying. politicians, delegates should be mindful when navigating such interests and should consider the millions of jobs associated with the tech industry. Protecting Data Privacy A less-controversial approach that attempts to combat the issue of psychologically targeting users—such as using stories that can General Data persuade them to vote one way or another or enrage them against a Protection candidate—is to protect individual social media user’s data from Regulation (GDPR) third party vendors and hackers. While one side of the election – A 2018 E.U.-wide interference issue may be the direct manipulation and hacking of law that places election equipment, the strategic purchasing, stealing, and extensive regulations deployment of user data to show carefully curated “fake news” is and expectations on another potent weapon that should be addressed. big tech companies to The European Union is the global leader on the issue of cyber data protect and rights. In 2018, the E.U. enacted the General Data Protection anonymize user data. Regulation (GDPR) which placed extensive regulations and expectations on big tech companies to protect and anonymize user data. GDPR also requires that users give explicit affirmative consent to the further processing, collection, and dissemination of their usage habits. Such an approach in the United States may prove instrumental in making sure foreign entities cannot hack or purchase the personal data of Americans to target them with psychological persuasion campaigns.

Political Perspectives on this Solution While the data protection approach is politically viable, especially amongst consumer rights advocates, tech companies would likely stand against the measure as it would reduce their profit margins. Though promoting data privacy has been both a liberal and conservative cause, the implementation of a GDPR-like regulation in the United States would likely not be enough to fully address the threats of cyber warfare and digital election interference on its own.

BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

While there have been no explicit budgets proposed or official cost estimates evaluated for the total revamping of the American electoral system, independent organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice have estimated future technology and staff training costs to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the Brenan Center, replacing outdated voting machines alone would cost approximately $380 million dollars. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees election security, was given a $400 million- dollar annual budget by Congress in 2018. House members would likely have to work within that budget frame before having to appropriate more money for new election technology and safety initiatives.

CONCLUSION

The fate of the United States and future of American democracy largely rests in the ability of voters to feel that their votes are both legitimate. Elections are at the very core of the American political process. Without protecting critical election infrastructure, Americans may lose faith in the democratic process or be subject to a foreign power who exploits these weaknesses to install their own preferred candidate. The members of the House Intelligence Committee must do everything in their power to ensure that the intrusions that took place in 2016 are not repeated in 2020. Delegates are encouraged to think creatively, including by combining the aforementioned policy solutions or developing entirely original ones.

GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH

Delegates should continue to monitor news outlets for new developments regarding the extent of Russian interference in the 2016, 2018, and upcoming 2020 U.S. elections. As more information

from the Special Counsel’s investigation becomes declassified, delegates will have a better idea of how exactly Russian officials targeted state and local electoral systems. As the 2020 Presidential primary and general election approaches, delegates should closely monitor reports of foreign influence in local Congressional races. Trustworthy news outlets who have dedicated staff members to cover this story include The New York Times, Bloomberg, and Defense News.

GLOSSARY

Fake news - false, misinformation spread over digital platforms often with the intent of pushing a particular political agenda.

Mueller/Special Counsel Investigation - a special independent Justice Department investigation launched in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller into whether high level Trump and now White House officials collaborated with the Russian government.

Think tank – a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific political or economic problems.

Troll Farm - Russian government funded “internet agencies”, physical buildings that house hundreds of paid internet actors and trolls who create fake social media content

States’ rights philosophy – a commonly held conservative belief that policy issues and the administration of government services are best left to local officials to handle, and not the federal government.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – A 2018 E.U.-wide law that places extensive regulations and expectations on big tech companies to protect and anonymize user data.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Root, Danielle. Election Security in All 50 States, Center for American Progress. 12 February 2018. Washington, D.C. Web. Accessed June 4, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports /2018/02/12/446336/election-security-50-states/

Spakovsky, Hans. “Russian Hacking Didn’t Alter the 2016 Election”.

The Heritage Foundation. 13 October 2017. Web. Accessed 2 June 2018. https://www.heritage.org/election- integrity/commentary/russian-hacking-didnt-alter-election

Shane, Scott. “Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too.” The New York Times. 17 February 2018. Web. Accessed 3 June 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia- isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

Douglas, Anna. “Anti-fake news bill awaits Obama.” The Chicago Tribune. December 2017. Web. Accessed 3 June 2018. http://digitaledition.chicagotribune.com/tribune/article_popov er.aspx?guid=e5824f23-fff8-4742-8479-0ee30aa2f881

Riley, Michael. “US Cyberattacks far worse than previously known.”. Bloomberg News. 13 June 2017. Web. Accessed 2 June 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06- 13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Halderman, Alex. “Here’s how to keep Russian hackers from attacking the 2018 elections”. 21 June 2017. Web. Accessed 2 June 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/20 17/06/21/heres-how-to-keep-russian-hackers-from-attacking- the-2018-elections/?utm_term=.4e1bd5757c58

Wood, Collin. “Cyber security bill would equip states with new resources to protect critical election infrastructure”. 26 May 2017. Web. Accessed 2 June 2018. https://statescoop.com/cybersecurity-resiliency-bill-would- equip-states-with-new-resources-protect-critical-infrastructure

Director of National Intelligence. “Report on Russian activities in the 2016 Presidential Elections”. January 2017. Web. Accessed 1 June 2018. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Volz, Dustin. “US spending bill to provide 380 million for election cyber security”. 21 March 2018. Web. Accessed June 3 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-congress- cyber/u-s-spending-bill-to-provide-380-million-for-election- cyber-security-idUSKBN1GX2LC

Kirby, Jen. “Russia probed at least 7 states voter systems in 2016”. 27 February 2018. Web. Accessed 3 June 2018.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/17060132/intelligence- russia-hacking-us-elections

Brendan Center for Justice. “Proposed Election Infrastructure Spending”. 22 March 2018. Web. Accessed June 1 2018. https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/proposed-election- infrastructure-spending