Challenges in U.S. Election Security

Peter Schweizer, an investigative journalist, highlights a concerning dynamic: “We tend to think our enemies, like China or Iran, aim to disrupt our elections. But, interestingly, some resistance has actually originated from certain states.”

In the past, election security in the United States seemed to be a bipartisan concern. States took meticulous steps to ensure the integrity of voting machines, equipment, ballot collection, and especially, the accuracy of voter registration records. However, the current landscape presents significant challenges in verifying voter eligibility.

Heather Honey, a senior counselor and former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has been leading initiatives to assist states in cleaning up their voter rolls and enhancing election security. Alongside Schweizer and co-host Eric Eggers, who authored a book on election fraud in 2018, she shared insights about American voting security.

Many states have actively engaged with efforts from DHS and the Justice Department to identify and remove deceased individuals and noncitizens from voter rolls. The federal government streamlined this process through the SAVE system, an online tool facilitating quick verification of immigration and citizenship status for individuals seeking to vote, receive benefits, or access certain government services.

Yet, some states—California being a notable example—have persistently resisted these efforts.

“To begin with, President Trump made the SAVE system, which has existed for years, accessible to state officials at no cost. Previously, they had to pay for each use,” explains Honey. Nearly half of U.S. states have utilized the system’s bulk-upload feature to align their voter registration lists with federal records.

Honey reveals that nearly 500,000 deceased registrants and approximately 30,000 noncitizens were identified through this process. The Justice Department and DHS have now initiated legal action against California after discovering that over 20,000 individuals who are likely aliens are registered to vote there, contravening state law that prohibits noncitizens from participating in federal elections.

Recently, the Justice Department sued California, claiming these individuals, likely noncitizens, registered and/or voted in a federal election. Homeland Security Investigations, along with other federal agencies, applied various verification methods to assess the citizenship status of the identified individuals.

One might wonder how the federal government obtained these records for review, given California’s lack of participation in the SAVE system.

“We accessed publicly available voter files, which states make accessible to the public. We began analyzing these files,” Honey explains. Most states offer their voter registration records, often for a fee, to political bodies, nonprofit voter registration groups, and more.

Eggers raises a question: “Are there any similarities among the states that opted out of the SAVE system?”

Honey responds, “These states aren’t solely governed by Democrats, though most are.” Some states have expressed privacy concerns regarding the sharing of their unredacted voter files, which include sensitive data like Social Security numbers and driver’s license information. Honey refutes this stance, highlighting that these states willingly share similar data with a nonprofit organization called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), which includes entire motor vehicle databases.

“They’re providing the same data to ERIC,” she reiterates. “Additionally, they are also sending their entire motor vehicle file, including data on individuals who aren’t even registered to vote. So, these are the same officials claiming they can’t share information with the Department of Justice due to privacy concerns.”

Honey notes that it seems contradictory when considering the entities they choose to share information with, especially since Social Security numbers are generally issued by the federal government, making them easily traceable.

In a letter from July, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullen requested California to handle approximately 20,000 mail-in ballots from individuals flagged by the federal government as likely noncitizens, asking for independent verification of their citizenship status before these ballots are counted.

California has reacted to this by asserting that separating received ballots would bring “catastrophic” consequences to its election system, despite the fact that all states already separate provisional and potentially duplicate ballots ahead of counting.

“However, they do currently segregate ballots for curing, which is verifying incomplete information on a mailed ballot, as required by California law. They set aside ballots needing curing,” Honey remarks. “Moreover, federal law mandates the segregation of provisional ballots. If someone arrives to vote and isn’t found in the voter roll or is in the wrong precinct, they must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot.”

She also points out that Tulare County in California recently admitted to mistakenly sending out 7,700 duplicate ballots, assuring the public that their system could identify duplicates upon their return. “It’s reasonable to expect that similar methods could be employed to flag the small number identified as potential noncitizens,” she adds.

“They should be able to identify and set these aside to prevent diluting the votes of U.S. citizens,” Honey argues.

Honey acknowledges that automatic voter registration through DMV services, or “motor voter laws,” has contributed to issues like these by requiring noncitizens to actively choose not to register when applying for a driver’s license.

Schweizer observes that those against election integrity measures often claim such initiatives decrease public confidence in the electoral system, responding, “Well, I don’t think that’s the issue. It’s not the measures that are shaking confidence; it’s the awareness of irregularities… Are we blaming the thermostat or the climate for the temperature? That’s the crux of the matter.”

Polling consistently reveals strong support among Americans for requiring voter ID, and the House of Representatives passed the “SAVE America Act” twice during its recent session, even though the Senate didn’t take it up under Republican leadership.

For Honey and others aligned with the Trump administration working toward secure elections, the SAVE Act would have been beneficial, but they believe existing laws could still be utilized to ensure better voter roll “hygiene.” For instance, Mullin at DHS has warned of withholding federal emergency management funds from states that neglect to address their voter rolls. She points out that law enforcement of voting regulations falls under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, whereas voting security is viewed as a national security concern, which is under the purview of DHS.

Honey has faced criticism in mainstream media, being labeled an “election denier,” but she accepts this as part of the job. “A lot of what’s portrayed is media-driven. I think it discourages election officials from pursuing the right actions,” she remarks.

Nevertheless, she believes progress is occurring. “Under Trump, our voting systems are in a safer position than they were a year ago. And I mean the entire election framework—from voter registration to campaign finance to the data relied upon by campaigns, improvements have been instituted,” she states. She refers to the issue of “granny farming,” which Eggers covered in his book, where political operatives visit nursing homes to “assist” residents with their absentee ballots.

“Dr. Oz issued guidelines for long-term care facilities designed to protect vulnerable nursing home residents from exploitation we’ve witnessed in previous years,” she recalls.

“These behind-the-scenes efforts, which the public might not notice daily, are significantly enhancing the security of our systems,” Honey concludes.