Federal Push for Election Control Alarms State Officials

“There’s no sort of level of trust or anything else at this point in time,” said Republican Wesley Wilcox, supervisor of elections in Marion County, Florida, describing his office’s relationship with federal election partners. State and local officials preparing for the midterm elections say the federal government, once a key partner in election security, has become a source of concern.

Officials have prepared for bomb threats at polling places, large-scale disinformation campaigns and state-backed hacking efforts. Now they’re also confronting a federal push for more control over how states run elections. POLITICO reported the concerns in its Morning Cybersecurity newsletter.

Who Gets to Control the Vote

During its second term, the Trump administration has sought more federal control over state election administration. In February, President Donald Trump called for Republicans to “nationalize” U.S. elections. An executive order restricting mail-in voting followed in March, alongside a nationwide effort to access voter rolls in every state and check them against a federal immigration database.

That voter-roll effort has reportedly faced scrutiny over the possible purging of eligible voters. The machinery that claims to protect election integrity is reaching into state records as state officials warn that eligible people could lose their place on the rolls.

“Our No. 1 risk at this point is the federal government,” said Democratic Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. Colorado was among 15 states that the Department of Homeland Security flagged that summer to watch for “vulnerabilities in upholding election integrity.” Griswold said federal officials wouldn’t be welcome inside Colorado’s Cyber Command Center because she fears federal meddling in state election administration.

The Colorado National Guard sets up the center every election to protect election infrastructure from cyber threats. The Department of Homeland Security, for its part, said: “The assertion that DHS is attempting to exert more federal control over elections heading into the November midterms is totally false.” State officials describe mistrust and a demand for access; DHS denies the charge.

The administration has also launched a broader effort to relitigate the 2020 election. Federal agencies and state election offices have repeatedly called it “the most secure in American history.” In February, the FBI seized years-old ballots from Fulton County, Georgia. In a July address, Trump highlighted Chinese efforts to access voter rolls and risks involving voting machines but offered no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen.

Security Cuts, More Burden on States

Some state election officials worry that efforts to sow doubt about voting could deepen skepticism about democratic processes and discourage people from voting. “The biggest disservice to our country is to have people disengage with the civic process,” said Delaware Secretary of State Charuni Patibanda-Sanchez. Her office doesn’t directly oversee elections, but she co-chairs the state’s Task Force on Free, Fair and Secure Elections.

The administration cut personnel and funding at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, including its election-security work, leaving states increasingly responsible for protecting their systems. CISA has recently announced some of its first public election-security actions since those cuts. Its 13-page plan, released late last month, outlines free resources for state and local election offices.

Some officials said the plan came too close to the midterms to help states prepare. “The latest CISA plan is a day late and millions of dollars short,” said Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. “The states and localities are going to ensure that there's a free, safe and secure midterm election, despite absence or interference from the federal government.”

The report describes state and local officials trying to secure election systems with less federal support and federal authority itself under suspicion. It describes no community-led mutual-aid effort. People who rely on functioning elections are left with officials contesting who controls the machinery, and a late plan that some say won’t arrive in time.