DHS vague on rules for election aid, say states
- By Chase Gunter
- Feb 14, 2017
State election officials had more questions than answers after a Department of Homeland Security presentation explaining why election systems should be deemed critical U.S. infrastructure.
Geoff Hale, DHS' cybersecurity strategy and integration program manager, outlined the changes and benefits that the recent designation provides during a Feb. 14 Election Assistance Commission meeting.
The primary benefits, Hale said, are added protections against nation-states, guaranteed priority in DHS assistance requests and greater access to information on vulnerabilities. "Without institutionalizing this through a designation of critical infrastructure, there's no guarantee the services would be available," he said.
"Being critical infrastructure, there are a set of international norms that" prevent countries from attacking these networks, said Hale. "And potentially waiting nine months for a risk and vulnerability assessment may not work on a procurement timeline" for election officials.
Hale also stressed that the "full threat information" available to states that opt in for DHS assistance is not subject to state sunshine laws or Freedom of Information Act requests.
In advance of the 2016 general election, several states including Georgia objected to the idea of a critical infrastructure designation, but most worked with DHS to make sure their voting systems were secure.
Some state officials at the Feb. 14 event continued to question the need for the designation, and pressed Hale about DHS's specific plans to reach out to election officials.
Hale suggested the next step for DHS likely would be to set up a group of cybersecurity experts to engage willing local officials. However, he said he did not have a timeline as to when outreach might begin and was not yet sure what the engagement with election officials would look like in practice.
EAC commissioner Matthew Masterson asked how the designation will specifically affect how local election officials conduct their operations.
Hale said the designation impacts "very little" in terms of electoral operations, and was done to "institutionalize a vital aspect of our democracy." He emphasized that DHS's assistance was voluntary.
"We don't have any new authorities," he said. "We are here to help, but cannot compel anything."
Masterson told FCW he learned "DHS is beginning to figure this out now, too." He added that DHS needs to coordinate with election officials to get everyone on the same page, but noted, "they seem open to that."
Another EAC commissioner, Christy McCormick, remains opposed to the designation, and told FCW DHS's presentation did little to clear up her lingering uncertainties.
McCormick dismissed the international protections as a "handshake agreement" that she did not think "changes anything," and added that DHS "claimed that elections would [now] get priority, but I would think they would get priority anyway, so I don't know that that's a viable benefit."
She also said the classified information sharing proposed by DHS is moving in the wrong direction in terms of electoral transparency, and that she remained dubious of DHS's categorization of the voluntary nature of states' participation.
"It's not really voluntary, right, because if you don't volunteer, you don't get the information that they have," she said. "Of course states are going to have to volunteer if they want the information DHS has… Nobody's going to not participate in security measures."
She also raised the concern that DHS, under the purview of the executive branch, politicizes elections in a way the EAC's authority as an independent agency does not.
Instead, McCormick said she would like to see "EAC actually be the interface with the federal government and the election officials, as we are now."
"We're the experts" on election matters, she said. "There's no reason we couldn't streamline this in a way that we get information out to the election administrators in an efficient and secure way, and then DHS can provide the resources that they provided in this election."
Chase Gunter is a staff writer covering civilian agencies, workforce issues, health IT, open data and innovation.
Prior to joining FCW, Gunter reported for the C-Ville Weekly in Charlottesville, Va., and served as a college sports beat writer for the South Boston (Va.) News and Record. He started at FCW as an editorial fellow before joining the team full-time as a reporter.
Gunter is a graduate of the University of Virginia, where his emphases were English, history and media studies.
Click here for previous articles by Gunter, or connect with him on Twitter: @WChaseGunter