News Release

Election Denialism as a National Security Issue

Share

A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll reported that “two out of three Americans say they are concerned that political violence could follow the Nov. 5 election.” According to election integrity experts, the public fears multiple kinds of election-related violence: pre-election, election day, and post-election. 

KAREN GREENBERG; kgreenberg3@law.fordham.edu 
    Greenberg is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law. She is the co-editor of Our Nation at Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue

Greenberg told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “A number of things come under the rubric of election violence when you talk about what people are worried about and what state, local, and federal agencies are worried about. There are pre-election, election day, and post-election worries. It’s a big basket. The thing that comes to mind most quickly is threats to poll workers… [as well as] threats to people who might show up at the polls in certain localities. The threats to election workers are both pre-election and day-of.” One Brennan Center survey found that since 2020, “38 percent of local election officials experienced threats, harassment, or abuse for doing their jobs.”

Some workers have chosen not to continue working the polls because they “don’t want to subject themselves to that treatment, [such as] threats or misbehavior or their families being threatened,” Greenberg said. Free and fair elections are in danger “when election workers are getting threats and don’t want to do election work for legitimate reasons… Is there a mechanism by which to calm election workers, to give them a sense that they will be protected?” Since 2021, the Department of Justice has attempted to create such a mechanism via the Election Threat Task Force, which aims to address threats to election workers. To date, the task force has prosecuted 17 cases. 

Greenberg suggests that there is reason to believe the election will be more safe and secure than past elections. “There is a full-throated effort to take care of this, and I think we’ll be better prepared.” In a recent piece for TomDispatch, Greenberg and Julian Zelizer wrote about the history of the electoral system and reforms to it. “We’ve known about vulnerabilities in the electoral system since the founding of the country,” Greenberg told the Institute for Public Accuracy. “Incrementally, we’ve tried to fix them––usually after there’s been some sort of crisis,” such as after the 1876 contested presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. 

In recent years, increased federal funds have been directed toward reforms. Since 2020, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and Congress have allocated an extra $205 million for election protection. Congress has passed the Electoral Count Reform Act, which attempts to improve the process of certifying the vote and ensure a smooth transition of power. Congress also passed legislation in 2022 to establish a Foreign Malign Influence Center to counter foreign disinformation. These reforms address the problems of election denialism and claims of fraud. “No matter how much integrity the election has,” Greenberg added, “it’s important that the messaging around this election is clear [and] that the processes are clear.”

Greenberg noted that experts are still calling for more state funding for election protection. “The proof will be in the pudding,” Greenberg said. “We’ll find out [how much extra protection is being offered] as we go forward… We know the names of a variety of [initiatives] throughout the government that are attending to this,” including the Electoral Count Reform Act and Election Threat Task Force, “but we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen.” 

Greenberg also noted the importance of the courts and Congress in shoring up election integrity. “The role of the Supreme Court is important,” Greenberg added. “In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided the election. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had been reluctant to get involved in presidential elections. That was a big threshold… After Bush v. Gore, after the gutting of the heart of the Voting Rights Act, after 2020, we’ve seen that this electoral system has been under tremendous attack. Our Nation at Risk talks about what can change that isn’t just one-liners: not just ‘get rid of the Electoral College’… It’s the citizenry, the Supreme Court, and Congress. They’re all addressable. It’s not just chaos versus a perfect system.”