Potential Halt on Election Security Funds Alarms State Officials
The previous government signaled that they might withhold a significant amount of election security funding if states do not align with its policy objectives. This proposition has caused a stir among voting officials who argue that the new prerequisites will render the funds out of reach for the majority of the states.
Approximately $28 million, or 3% of a significant nationwide grant program, is allocated for election security and is now in jeopardy. Some officials and experts are voicing concerns that these new stipulations might also threaten hundreds of millions of dollars in other grants meant for law enforcement.
The Impact of Withholding Funds
Voting officials argue that the sum of money at risk won't necessarily sabotage the nation's election security. However, the potential withholding of funds due to policy disagreements, coupled with recent election security funding cuts, has prompted many to question whether the previous administration was genuinely prioritizing election security as it claimed.
Despite assurances, there has been a notable reduction in election security support offered to the states. This will be yet another setback for many states, as most are not willing to let the president dictate how their elections function.
The Grant Money In Question
The grant funds in question are managed by a federal agency intended to aid state and local governments in preparing for and preventing terrorism and disasters. For some grants, priority areas are designated to better direct where the money is spent. Three years ago, election security was added to these priorities.
However, last year, the previous president instructed this agency to modify the election security portion of the grants as part of an executive order on voting, which has since been halted by the courts.
New Rules Spark Concern
The new grant rules were made public in late July, and numerous election officials saw them as an attempt by the administration to manipulate their policy decisions. "The agency is trying to sneak changes into our election laws," said one state official. "That is unacceptable."
Approximately $130,000 in election security grant money has been rejected by one state because it does not plan to comply with the new requirements. Another official, who wished to remain anonymous, said their state is also declining the money. They estimated only a few election offices were cooperating with their state emergency management departments to draft the grant applications in accordance with the new election requirements, thereby potentially accessing that money.
The Ambiguous New Requirements
It is unclear exactly how the agency will assess whether states meet the new demands. For example, one of the requirements is that jurisdictions applying for money must "prioritize compliance" with federal guidelines for voting system certification that are so new they have not yet been implemented anywhere in the country.
Another new requirement is that jurisdictions applying for election security money must use a new citizenship verification tool for all people working at a polling place in "any capacity." However, details about the accuracy, reliability, and data security of this system remain undisclosed.
Other Grants at Risk
Reports have indicated that in previous years, some of the grant program's money earmarked for election security has not actually been used to bolster state voting infrastructure.
While the election security portion of the grants represents a small percentage of the overall billion-dollar program, there are concerns that the remainder of the grant money could also be withheld if states don't comply with the elections rules.
In the section of the new election requirements, there is a clause that states an applying jurisdiction must "demonstrate proof of compliance before accessing the full" award. This line is unclear and alarming. "You are talking about a billion dollars for state and local law enforcement to protect Americans from terrorism," one expert said. "The idea that that money ... could be in any way held up is alarming for anybody who cares about the safety and security of citizens."