It’s not that anyone “can be a James Bond and hack into the system”: US Election Assistance Commission Head Discusses the Rigged-Election Controversy

The issue of voter fraud and rigged elections has emerged into prominence during the 2016 US presidential elections. On 7 October 2016, the Washington Post reported that the government of the United States of America had officially accused Russia of attempting to interfere in the elections through methods that included hacking the computers of political organisations such as the Democratic National Committee. Earlier, on 29 August, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had warned US election officials of such a possibility after it uncovered that hackers had targeted two state election databases in the recent weeks, and recommended that they increase computer security measures. The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has frequently suggested during his campaign that the elections might be rigged—the nominee claimed that the media and the Democratic Party were colluding against him, and recently stated that he may not accept the election result. Though state officials have repeatedly denied any possibility of election fraud, the issue continues to be frequently discussed in the US election coverage.

On 20 October, Sagar, a web reporter at Vantage, The Caravan, spoke to Thomas Hicks, the chairman of the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent statutory body charged with providing assistance to states for conducting elections. Sagar met Hicks on the sidelines of a conference hosted by the Election Commission of India on voter education for inclusive participation, at the Taj Palace hotel in Delhi. Hicks discussed why it’s unlikely that the election could be rigged, and described the contingency plans the authorities had devised in case of cyber threats or local emergencies.

Sagar: In recent months, there have been reports of hacking of voter registration databases in at least two states. Could the United States elections be compromised as a result?

Thomas Hicks: No, the incidents that’ve been reported has been through databases. And there are no real indications that any information was altered or, they were basically copied. We at the EAC have issued guidelines to the states to ensure that they keep their databases secure.

S: Who could have stolen the databases? What kind of impact could it have on the outcome of the upcoming elections?

TH: That’s a question for the Homeland security or FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation]. My agency would just [ensure] that we talked with states about ensuring that they keep information safe and secured. So that, voters, once they get to polls can vote without any sort of problems.

S: But is it possible that US elections could be rigged in the way it has been reported in the international media?

TH: No. My fellow commissioner and I published an op-ed in a major US newspaper day before yesterday [18 October 2016] to talk about why the election and this talk of it being “stolen” and hacked is way over blown. The voting machines that are used in elections, the ones that we certified, are not hooked up to the internet. These machines may have additional features where they can be turned on to the internet. I equate that to basically having a car that has a lot of different features—your car might have speed control but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are using speed control. You might turn that off. And we ask all states to turn off the wi-fi to ensure that they are not vulnerable.

S: How do you look at the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s statement that he may not accept the election results?

TH: That’s something for the political candidates to hash out. Our role is to ensure that those folks who go to the polls are registered and they cast their ballots, and have those ballots counted correctly. We stay out of the political fray of that.

S: Should voters be assured that their ballots will be safe?

TH: Voters should be assured that [when] they go out and cast their ballot, they can do so with confidence.

One of the things that I found out, when I went to Arizona for their primary at the end of August—one of things the voters told me—is that they have got a lot more confidence in the system [after] becoming poll workers themselves. So they started from the end side, and therefore, they saw that it’s not this monolithic method of, you know, anyone can basically be a James Bond and hack into the system. This is more of a decentralised system. There are 9,000 jurisdictions across United States and of that, a jurisdiction might be using one or more kinds of different voting equipment. That’s not to say there are 9,000 kinds of voting equipment, but that’s to say that each jurisdiction may use something differently. There are only a few states that use the same equipment. But, even then, they are not hooked to the internet and the devices are secured by the election officials making sure that they are not only physically secure, but secure virtually.

S: What steps have been taken to protect voters’ databases?

TH: I believe that most of the states have looked at what happened to those two states and looked to see what their vulnerabilities are. I think they have looked at our website to find out what sort of things they can do to ensure that their databases are secure. Even if some bad player was able to get the voter registration list, [it will not matter because] most of these are paper-backed up anyway.

S: But, what if the bad players delete some of the names of the voters from databases? Will that not affect the outcome of elections result?

TH: They won’t, because there is a back-up to that. If a voter goes to polls and they believe their name should be on there, they can still cast their ballot provisionally. They just have to have their votes verified later on. The voter registration list is one of the means to verify the voters, but it’s not the only means.

S: Have you given any instructions to the election officials or other agencies?TH: We have given them to the states and to the FBI. And the Department of Homeland Security has offered assistance. They have more resources than my agency does. The states have been given an opportunity to request it. In the US, if there is a natural disaster, say a hurricane or a flood, the governors or other folks would ask the president for assistance to alleviate the pain that’s been caused by the hurricane or flood. And this is the same sort of thing—the states are asking the departments for resources to come in and look at their system to make sure that they are not vulnerable, and then move forward with making sure that they remain secure through the election.

And I hope that, after the election’s done, the candidate who gets the most votes or wins the electoral college [does not] stop talking about this. That means providing adequate resources, that means providing enough incentives for states to actually work these sorts of things out. That’s what happened in 2000 [The 2000 US presidential election, in which George Bush and Al Gore were candidates, was one of the closest in the country’s history. The margin in the state of Florida was so low that a recount was triggered under state law. The recount decision eventually reached the US Supreme Court, which awarded Florida’s votes to Bush.] There was a loss of confidence in the system, but election officials, advocacy groups and others came together to reform the Help America Vote Act. The EAC was formed, and it gave out 3.6 billion [US] dollars to the states to reform the election process. Some of the systems have come to a fork in the road in terms of: do they be replaced, or do they add band aids to them to ensure that they keep working. But whoever is president needs to work with [the US] Congress to ensure that we have security in our election process.

S: Has the Indian election commission asked for any assistance from EAC recently?

TH: That’s why I’m here at the conference, they wanted to know what sort of things we do for overseas military voters, what sort of things that we do for disabled voters, and what do we do for young voters in terms of educating them.

S: What were your suggestions to the Indian election commission?

TH: I would say for disabled voters, I brought some materials in terms of what their rights are. So we have a small card that can be folded in half and you can put that in your wallet. And list all your rights as a federal voter when you go to polls. We did that card in three different ways—we did it in Braille for blind voters, and we also did them in large print for voters who may have a visual disability, and we have one with a QR code.

S: What can India learn from the US in terms of making its electoral process more secure?

TH: In terms of security, I think that the voter databases, the election-night reporting, from A to Z: ensuring that people who are registered to vote are [those that show up], to making sure the machines are secure. Election officials are not going to wake up on 7 November and say [they’ve] got to prepare for elections on 8 November. Election officials in the US have been preparing for this election for the last two years.

There is always a problem with the election, you can’t have over 100 million people voting on one day and there not be some sort of issue that occurs. But that’s not to say that elections officials don’t have a contingency plan for that—whether that’s a janitor not getting up and opening a school on election day, or a machine breaking down.

Four years ago, Hurricane Sandy happened a week before the elections. And the governors of New Jersey and Connecticut and others had contingency plans in place to ensure that those voters or those areas were not affected.

I think that each individual state needs a look at which sort of issue might affect them and plan for those sorts of things. You can’t plan for everything but you can plan for some things.

S: Could you be specific about the contingency plan? How, for instance, may a voter cast their ballot in the event of a hurricane?

TH: It depends on where their location is. For instance, we had a 1,000-year occurrence [a term used to describe floods that have a one-in-a-thousand chance of occurring in any given year] in two states this past fall—West Virginia and Louisiana. We had both of those secretaries of the states coming to our office to talk to us about what happened, and how they are preparing to ensure that the elections won’t be affected. And they both said they are ready because they have contingency plans in place. Neither one lost equipment that [couldn’t] be replaced in the four months [before elections]. They might have to move certain locations for polling places, but they plan for that.

This interview has been edited and condensed.