Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and Indiana are all belatedly making moves to require paper records for all votes cast in their states — a vital shift to ensure votes weren’t manipulated by hackers or altered by digital glitches. But there’s a catch. The moves were spurred in large part by former president Donald Trump’s false claims about fraud and manipulation in the 2020 election and his baseless crusade against voting machine companies — rather than by legitimate concerns spurred by Russian interference in the 2016 contest. It may be the only security-enhancing effect of Trump’s wild and baseless claims that his election loss was illegitimate — and election security advocates are celebrating it even as they’re dubious about the impetus. “I don’t condone bizarre claims about past elections or fearmongering about how we operate elections, but if people have to resort to misguided beliefs to come to true beliefs, things could be worse,” Mark Lindeman, director of the group Verified Voting, told me. “It’s really valuable to have paper ballots, and we don’t care how people come to that conclusion,” Lindeman said.
National: GAO: EAC Can Decide on State Funding for Election Officials’ Security | Lisbeth Perez/MeriTalk
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has been given full discretion to decide if states can allocate funds from the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to provide security services for state or local election officials, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In December 2021, the EAC reached out to GAO to determine whether states may use certain grant funds made available to them under HAVA to provide “physical security services and social media threat monitoring” in connection with election activities. HAVA authorizes the use of grant funds for states to improve the administration of elections for Federal office. However, the law does not explicitly authorize nor prohibit the use of funds for security services. GAO stated in its decision that “if not otherwise specified in the law, an expense is authorized where it bears a reasonable, logical relationship to the purpose of the appropriation to be charged.” “Here, a decision to allow the use of grant funds for the physical security services and social media threat monitoring would be within EAC’s legitimate range of discretion,” the report says. “Congress vested in EAC the authority to administer the HAVA grants [but] also vested in EAC the authority to determine whether a particular grant expenditure helps ‘improv[e] the administration of elections for Federal office.’”
Full Article: GAO: EAC Can Decide on State Funding for Election Officials’ Security – MeriTalk