Democrats’ big win on Election Day, which saw them take control of both the House and Senate, has ramifications for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, artificial intelligence, surveillance policy and much more.
Here’s what lawmakers and cybersecurity experts have to say about the short-term and long-term prospects on Capitol Hill.
Maggie Hassan, D-N.H. is in line to take the gavel on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with Sen. Gary Peters, Mich., retiring.
“Our government’s number one job is to keep people safe, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee must work to ensure that our country remains safe, secure and free from all kinds of threats,” Hassan said in a statement to CyberScoop. “That work involves protecting against terrorism and fentanyl trafficking, but it also includes guarding against emerging threats like artificial intelligence security risks and strengthening our cybersecurity.”
“The Trump-Vance administration has undermined our security on these fronts, including by diverting resources away from combatting fentanyl trafficking and gutting CISA,” she continued. “We need to reverse these cuts, confront these challenges and put public safety first.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., is poised to return once again as chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Democrats are taking over at a “pivotal time for CISA,” with it looking to add staff after cutting back by nearly one-third.
“First and foremost, we will aim to work with CISA to expedite its critical re-staffing effort and to ensure it has the expertise necessary to support stakeholders as they defend against the scale and velocity of AI-enabled cyber-attacks,” he said in a statement to CyberScoop. “Advances in AI can help defenders, but it will also accelerate the consequences of deferred investments in security and CISA must be well-positioned to help critical infrastructure owners and operators rapidly improve their cybersecurity posture.”
“We will prioritize getting resources straight into the hands for defenders — by extending the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program and improving support of under-resourced sectors, especially water,” he continued. “We will work to ensure CISA re-establishes its cross-sector coordination capacity, which was diminished when the Trump administration- terminated CIPAC, by making sure the Anchor-CI is eventually up and running and meets the needs of stakeholders. Finally, we will make sure CISA is well-positioned to support the secure development and deployment of AI.”
Before the GOP relinquishes control of the House and Senate to Democrats, though, there’s a lame-duck session ahead.
Long-term renewal of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA 2015) is a bipartisan and industry priority, with it set to expire Dec. 11. Current Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been the biggest obstacle to reauthorization, but he could get “rolled” by GOP leadership on an extension, said Michael Garcia, a former government cyber official and vice president of the cybersecurity practice at Monument Advocacy. Possible vehicles for CISA 2015 to hitch a ride include an omnibus funding bill or the annual defense policy bill.
The Department of Homeland Security, and its subagency CISA, are currently operating on a continuing resolution that’s also set to expire Dec. 11, where lawmakers could temporarily extend CISA 2015 if a long-term solution can’t be reached in the lame duck. Another continuing resolution before Dec. 11 in lieu of an omnibus spending bill is an option for the lame duck. Both a CR and omnibus spending bill would theoretically include DHS funding, although the agency’s funding has been made more difficult in the past by the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the department.
Republicans have talked about wanting to get the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act done in the lame duck. Besides the possibilities of CISA 2015 being included in the bill, Nicholas Leiserson, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Security and Technology, said the Senate version of the legislation has a pair of very noteworthy cyber provisions: a “very broad” authorization for contractor-owned, contractor-operated offensive cyber operations, and a requirement that every artificial intelligence product sold to the Defense Department have an AI bill of materials.
While Paul is losing his gavel, he’s shown he can be a disruptive force on passing cybersecurity legislation through the Senate in the minority. That makes what he does next possibly determinative for cyber bills, Leiserson and Garcia said. “If he leaves HSGAC, let a thousand cyber bills flourish!” Garia quipped on social media. Paul could opt to become the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee instead of HSGAC.
Nebraska Sen. James Lankford would take over for Paul as top HSGAC Republican in that scenario, and an industry source said he’s viewed as a supporter of CISA 2015.
On Senate Intelligence, the panel’s leadership goes to a lawmaker who has placed a big emphasis on cybersecurity in his congressional career: Mark Warner, D-Va.
On the House side, while Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., moves to the minority on the Homeland Security panel, he has proven willing to collaborate with Democrats on cybersecurity issues. Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., is poised to take the gavel of the panel’s cybersecurity subcommittee, and Rep. Vince Fong, R-of California looks set to become the subcommittee’s top Republican and has his own history of bipartisanship. Fong would replace current subcommittee chair Andy Ogles, the far-right Tennessee Republican who lost in the primaries.
One thing to watch in the House, Leiserson said, is how the House looks to tackle AI — through existing committees, a select committee or some other structure. Democrats haven’t put forward a unified front on AI guardrails yet.
With AI models uncovering as many vulnerabilities as they are, “highly capable frontier models are going to drive a lot of discussion” about AI and cybersecurity, said Craig Albright, the Business Software Alliance’s senior vice president for U.S. government relations.
If the NDAA or a CISA 2015 extension don’t pass in the lame duck, they’d be priorities in 2027, too.
“CISA 2015 has to happen, and if we can’t get it done, then we can’t move to the next thing,” said Henry Young, BSA’s policy director. “Once we get it done, there’s an open question about which of these priorities that we’ve talked about gets to be number one. Is it post-quantum cryptography? Is it government IT modernization? Is it frontier AI cybersecurity systems? We don’t know that yet, and we can’t know until we pass this law.”
How damaged the agency CISA is by Trump administration’s budget cuts is something Democrats are expected to scrutinize closely. Another top budget issue is what to do with the expired State and Local Cybersecurity Grants Program housed at DHS, since even if it’s reauthorized, it will require appropriators taking steps to invest in it.
Democrats could take a look at a variety of other Trump administration changes at DHS and CISA, on topics like election security, the Cyber Safety Review Board, the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative and more.
More broadly, Leiserson said an area of Democratic cyber oversight is likely to be the Department of Government Efficiency that cut cyber personnel at agencies at and beyond CISA, and “particularly the integrity of systems that DOGE touched when they were given very high privileged access to federal systems.”
If the White House puts forward a permanent nominee for director of CISA, Democrats would be poised to vet that person. They also would have a say in who leads the Office of the National Cyber Director, should the incumbent, Sean Cairncross, depart.
So far, Democrats haven’t put forward a unified posture on expired surveillance authorities known as Section 702, although both Warner and incoming House Intelligence Chairman Jim Himes, D-Conn., have fought in the past for its renewal. The surveillance program is operating similarly still due to a court order, but that order only lasts through next spring.
The post What Democratic control of Congress means for cybersecurity appeared first on CyberScoop.
Sysdig’s platform uses runtime visibility to track AI agent actions and block risky behavior before it reaches production systems.
The post Sysdig Adds Runtime Security and Governance for AI Agents appeared first on SecurityWeek.
An Oklahoma man has been charged with mailing suspicious white substances to election officials across the country.
Robin Patrick Martin faces charges of conveying false or misleading information and hoaxes, as well as mailing threatening communications. The charges allege a nationwide effort to intimidate election officials and support President Donald Trump.
Starting on Sept. 16, 2024, multiple state election officials reported receiving mail containing a white, powdery substance and a three-page letter headed “DECLARATION OF WAR.” Officials in nearly every state have since received similar mailings over the past two years. Election officials provided some of the evidence, while federal authorities intercepted other letters in transit.
The letters bore a return address for the “The United States Traitor Elimination Army” in Takoma Park, Maryland. Some envelopes also had threatening messages written on them that could only be seen under ultraviolet light.
The letters cited the belief, promoted by some supporters of Trump, that the 2020 election was marred by voter fraud, along with similar concerns about the 2024 election.
Other envelopes included messages like “No US Jurisdiction!,” “Mailed from the Indian Nation,” and “Are you for us? Or against us?”
Another message read: “To FBI: What do you want for your children? Peace through strength or nuclear war? Use your common sense! Protect Trump! Protect the election! Protect Legal votes! Throw out illegal votes! That is the motive!”
The case was first reported by the Associated Press.
Investigators subpoenaed email and phone records listed for the address, tying it to a burner phone purchased at a Walmart Supercenter in Northwest Oklahoma City. Surveillance video showed an older white man matching Martin’s description purchasing the phone and driving away in a car registered to Martin.
Other items purchased at the same Walmart pointed to Martin’s involvement, including a booklet of stamps, privacy envelopes, along with tumeric, white vinegar and povidone-iodine, which are used to make invisible ink. Records from the phone also placed Martin at various postal distribution centers around the state.
In a release, FBI Director Kash Patel said Martin sent letters to “well over 100 locations including multiple state secretary offices, election offices, and more.” He also took a shot at the Biden administration, claiming they “failed to catch” Martin “but this FBI got it done.”
According to the criminal complaint, Martin sent the letters in the months leading up to the Nov. 2024 presidential election. The Trump administration has overseen the case since Jan. 2025.
“Threatening election officials and attempting to intimidate public servants is a serious federal offense and will not be tolerated,” said U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester for the Western District of Oklahoma in a statement. “Working alongside our federal law enforcement partners, we are committed to investigating these threats and holding accountable those who seek to spread fear and intimidation in our communities.”
The post Oklahoma man charged with mailing threats, substances to election officials nationwide appeared first on CyberScoop.
Early reports of ballot scanner malfunctions in Westchester County, New York are a sign of the challenges election officials will face in the current online information environment as voters head to the polls Tuesday on the final day of voting.
While such equipment failures and breakdowns are not uncommon and happen in a small number of precincts every election cycle, and there is no evidence of foul play, conspiracists quickly jumped on the news.
According to Kate Starbird, a professor at the University of Washington who researches online rumors and disinformation tied to elections, the rumors are already spreading within right-wing online circles as evidence of election malfeasance.
Starbird cited metrics showing that posts on X about the scanner malfunctions grew to as many as 100 a minute in the hours after the news was reported, with established election deniers, such as The Gateway Pundit, amplifying conspiracist framings.
The Westchester County Board of Elections said the problems appear related to some ballots being too thick for the machines to accept, leading to rejections. Voters with affected ballots were told to place them in designated orange emergency ballot bags that will be secured, monitored and counted by officials in compliance with election laws.
“The Board of Elections is in constant communication with New York State officials, Westchester County Government and poll workers to address this issue and ensure that voting continues with as little disruption as possible,” the board wrote in a statement. “In the meantime, voters should continue to complete their paper ballots as instructed by poll workers.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James said her office was also monitoring the situation and “is in touch with the state and local Boards of Elections as they work on a solution.”
“Westchester voters can still safely fill out and turn in their ballots at their polling locations,” James wrote on X. “Your votes will count.”
Westchester County is where many votes in the NY-17 congressional race will be cast between Republican incumbent Mike Lawler and Democratic Party nominee Cait Conley. Conley previously served as the election security lead for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under the Biden administration.
Lawler sought to assure his supporters that the affected ballots will be transported by police escorts to a central location at the board of elections and will not be opened at the polling site.
“I want to be clear: there’s no shenanigans going on here,” Lawler said in a news conference Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice issued a news release announcing charges against 63 individuals, many of them lawful permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for decades and some who later became naturalized citizens with legal voting rights, for allegedly voting as noncitizens in a past election.
The charges are part of a flurry of last-minute actions by the Trump administration to promote the specter of widespread noncitizen voting. The administration also brought lawsuits against states, like California and Alaska, in the past week that have sought to influence how ballots are treated and counted in the upcoming Senate races. Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have thrown them out while reiterating the executive branch has no constitutional or legal role in the administration of state-run elections.
Another federal court ordered the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to stop sending lists of “potential noncitizen” voters to states, after Trump administration lawyers acknowledged in court that the data they rely on for those assertions has a “high” error rate.
Nevertheless, the department continued its aggressive posture, announcing Tuesday that it would be deploying 1,000 election monitors to precincts across all 50 states.
The post Ballot scanner malfunctions, flurry of federal legal actions test election officials on final day of voting appeared first on CyberScoop.
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from the federal government seeking to preemptively block Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola from assuming office if she wins her race.
The Department of Justice sued Alaska last month, arguing that an alleged scheme by Peltola to recruit Daniel J. Sullivan, an independent candidate who shares a name with incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, would confuse voters.
Peltola’s campaign, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and civic groups including the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Common Cause all filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the federal government lacks standing and constitutional authority to weigh in on Alaska’s elections.
They also said the court cannot grant relief because there is no legal way to determine whether a voter mistakenly voted for one Sullivan over the other without violating the secret ballot.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason reached the same conclusion, noting in an order “the absence of any explanation from the United States as to how its requested relief could redress its alleged injury while simultaneously maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.” She also wrote that she “cannot grant the United States the relief it seeks because the United States has failed to establish the redressability prerequisite for Article III standing.”
Gleason’s opinion recounts Daniel J. Sullivan’s independent candidacy. Alaska Director of Elections Carol Beecher decertified it in June, later testifying that she did not believe he was running in good faith. State courts disagreed and restored his candidacy, and the Alaska Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
Alaskan election officials still took steps to distinguish the two candidates, listing their full names and labeling them “Incumbent,” “Republican candidate” and “Independent.” Alaska’s ranked-choice system lets voters rank both Sullivans, so they are not limited to a single candidate.
State officials and election experts also noted that nearly 60,000 Alaskan voters have already cast early or mail ballots, and there is no feasible way to reissue them.
The government’s one-sentence response said the state could segregate ballots and asked the court to allow a federal investigation into whether any voters were deceived. Gleason rejected that approach, saying the government offered no explanation of how ballot segregation or a law enforcement inquiry into voters’ intent could be carried out while preserving ballot secrecy.
Gleason also questioned the government’s constitutional basis, writing that the executive branch has no legitimate role in determining which candidates appear on Alaska’s ballots. The government said it was not seeking to change the time, place or manner of the election, but Gleason noted that its requests, including limits on certification, ballot segregation and an investigation of voters’ intent, all concern those matters, which are the state’s responsibility.
The lawsuit drew heavy media attention and concern from democracy advocates, but legal experts widely viewed it as exceptionally weak.
“Today’s ruling marks a victory for Alaska state sovereignty and Alaskan voters,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former voting rights attorney at DOJ. “By soundly rejecting the administration’s unlawful and now unsuccessful attempt to interfere, the court concurred with the State of Alaska that this is purely a matter of state law and that, under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no role in determining how Alaska certifies its Senate election.”
The post Federal court tosses Trump lawsuit challenging Alaska Senate certification appeared first on CyberScoop.
The Trump administration is taking direct aim at California state election officials, issuing grand jury subpoenas to election offices statewide ahead of the final day of voting on Nov. 3.
The investigations, first reported by Bloomberg, center on alleged administration of illegal voting. They are ostensibly tied to demands by the U.S. Justice Department that California and other states use federal voter lists to determine whether a voter is a “potential noncitizen” and should be removed.
The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters told CyberScoop it received multiple grand jury subpoenas last week related to the investigation. The office called the federal efforts an attempt to intimidate California election officials into accepting federal supremacy over state voter registration authority.
“At every step, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a confrontational, adversarial approach,” said Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan in a statement. “Election officials are acting in accordance with state and federal law. Clear court rulings at both the U.S. District Court level and the Court of Appeals have confirmed that. Threats and intimidation have no place in elections. We will take whatever steps necessary to ensure the safety of our employees and to remain focused on serving the voters of Los Angeles County so they can exercise their voting franchise.”
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, also reportedly a target of the federal probe, did not respond to a request for comment from CyberScoop.
One California election official, Clint Curtis, the outgoing registrar of voters in Shasta County, endorsed the federal government’s efforts to remove 20,000 voters from California voter rolls. Curtis, whose term ends in January, was previously part of a failed effort to hire Tina Peters, a felon and former Mesa County, Colorado, election clerk to help with the upcoming midterms. Curtis has long believed in widespread election fraud.
He told CyberScoop earlier this year that he believed Shasta County elections in 2024 were plagued by suspicious mail-in ballots, saying they looked, felt and “smelled” different from normal mail ballots.
The U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections and Congress the power to make election laws, something courts have repeatedly upheld in dozens of legal challenges by the Trump administration.
The Department of Justice has claimed there are at least 20,000 such potential noncitizens on California’s voter lists, while the Department of Homeland Security told CyberScoop the figure could be as many as 190,000. The administration’s data, drawn from public voter lists, federal databases and commercially purchased personal information, has been repeatedly criticized by election officials, voting experts and federal courts as inaccurate and unreliable for determining voter eligibility.
Most people identified as “potential noncitizens” turn out to be naturalized citizens who have since gained voting rights, or the result of state administrative errors that mistakenly registered a small number of ineligible voters. Many of those mistakenly registered never cast a ballot.
State officials have had to defend against attempts at federal coercion as well as third-party activists who are constantly testing and probing election procedures nationwide, sometimes without understanding the laws election officials must follow to verify voters.
On Wednesday, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in Minnesota announced felony charges against a pair of right-wing provocateurs, James O’Keefe and Cam Higby, for unlawful voting and identity theft. According to a statement from Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, the two showed up at various election offices, provided false identities of real voters to election judges, violating state laws against misrepresenting their identity in applying for a ballot.
“Elections are the bedrock of democracy and their protection is one of our highest priorities. Individuals engaging in unlawful conduct related to our elections will be held accountable,” said Moriarty. “Our office has had regular meetings with Hennepin County Elections staff in preparation for both the primary and the general elections this year and we are fully prepared.”
Voting rights and civil society groups are also executing short- and long-term plans to combat potential voter disenfranchisement ahead of Tuesday.
Jessica Ayoub, deputy political director for the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union, said her organization has “never been more prepared” for any expected fights with the federal government or local officials seeking to disenfranchise voters, saying they first began planning for different scenarios 18 months ago, cultivating relationships with hundreds of clerks and election staff across Michigan.
“We’ve gamed out 25 potential scenarios and have rapid response strategies that we’ll deploy to ensure our elections are protected and that our democracy remains intact,” said Ayoub, who cited a desire not to publicize further details ahead of next month.
On Friday, voting rights groups filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in California, seeking to block the federal government’s efforts against state election officials.
The groups are asking a judge to declare that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority and that state officials are legally carrying out their duties. They also want the court to force the departments to contact all California election officials who received subpoenas and tell them the investigation has halted due to a court order.
The post California officials confirm grand jury subpoenas as states, civil groups brace to protect elections from federal encroachment appeared first on CyberScoop.
A Florida judge ruled this week that ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne is not liable in a lawsuit brought by a Dominion Voting Systems executive over a film that accuses the former electronic voting hardware and software company executive of saying he “made sure” that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wouldn’t win reelection in 2020.
The lawsuit, brought in 2022 by Eric Coomer, a former director of product strategy and security at Dominion Voting Systems, concerns comments made in a 2020 film produced by Byrne titled “The Deep Rig.”
In the film, which alleges a conspiracy to manipulate 2020 election results in favor of Democrat Joe Biden, a man identified as Joseph Oltmann claimed he listened to a conference call led by organizers of “Antifa,” wherein another participant mentioned that “Eric” “The Dominion Guy” was also on the call.
In the film, Oltmann says a man identified as “Eric” told others on the call that Trump wouldn’t win reelection because he had “made sure of it.” Coomer denies taking part in any such call, and filed a lawsuit against Byrne and seven other individuals and entities for defamation.
U.S. District Judge Tom Barber’s decision did not address most of the substantive claims in the lawsuit, such as Byrne’s ultimate legal responsibility for the statements by Oltmann that made it into the film.
Because the lawsuit was originally filed in Colorado, it must meet a state law requirement for defamation claims involving matters of public concern. Coomer must show “clear and convincing evidence” that Byrne or others involved in making the film knew the claims were false and defamatory, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
“Where the challenged speech involves a matter of public concern, as it undeniably does here, the plaintiff also bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged statement is materially false and was made with actual malice,” wrote Barber in his opinion.
The standard is not whether a reasonable person would have investigated the claims before airing them, but whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity.”
In this case, Barber said it’s not impossible to clear that standard for public figures, but under Colorado law, Coomer would have a hard time providing clear and convincing evidence that Byrne “in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann’s story.”
Barber further wrote that technology has given “a powerful microphone” and large followings to people who would otherwise be dismissed as “kooks” and conspiracy theorists. These people make statements that are “objectively and demonstrably wrong” but who hold firm to their core beliefs because they “genuinely and sincerely believe what they say with every fiber of their being, even when objective evidence may suggest otherwise.”
Still, he said the current language and meaning of the Colorado law is clear, suggesting it was a matter for higher courts or legislators to clarify or change.
“Under the actual malice standard, unless it can be proven that the speaker subjectively believed his or her statements to be untrue, the law imposes no liability,” Barber wrote. “That is a policy choice that might deserve reexamination by the appropriate decision makers – the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado courts.”
Byrne’s attorney, Peter Ticktin, called the ruling a “victory” in a statement to CyberScoop.
“This is a substantial victory for Patriot Patrick Byrne and for the principles at stake in this case,” Ticktin said. “The court’s decision speaks for itself. We are pleased that the facts and applicable law resulted in summary judgment in our client’s favor.”
Coomer sued Byrne in his personal capacity, and Dominion Voting Systems was not a party to the lawsuit.
The voting machine giant was awarded more than $1.8 billion in combined legal settlements over the past two years from Fox News, Newsmax and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, all of whom made allegations that Dominion voting machines were used to maliciously flip or alter votes.
The post Lawsuit against Ex-Overstock CEO tied to 2020 election film falls apart over question of ‘actual malice’ appeared first on CyberScoop.
A series of federal raids and arrests of voters in California has escalated the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to take administrative control of U.S. elections.
The arrests, paired with comments from top officials at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, also make it clear that the federal government is willing to act on its past threats to investigate, arrest, or prosecute more than 190,000 California voters who the administration claims are “potential” noncitizens.
The Department of Justice announced Monday it made 28 arrests across California, part of what it was calling “Operation Protect the Vote.” All those arrested were foreign nationals and permanent green card holders, charged with fraudulently registering to vote in U.S. elections and making false statements in a naturalization application.
The Department of Justice said on Oct. 13 it provided a “list” of 20,000 registered California voters to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, claiming they were ineligible to vote based on federal records.
“Each of the 28 defendants charged today appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants we provided to California election officials last week,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter in a statement. “California refused to look at that list. Today’s charges show exactly what that refusal puts at risk. California must verify the citizenship of those more than 20,000 registrants before mail-in ballots are counted.”
A DHS spokesperson said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations are “actively rooting out and investigating” alleged voter fraud while claiming the Trump administration has “repeatedly” proven that noncitizens vote in elections.
“DHS and DOJ are laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of U.S. citizens,” the unnamed DHS spokesperson wrote in response to questions about the raid. “ONLY Americans should elect American leaders.”
There is no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in U.S. elections, either among legal voters or noncitizens. The Trump administration’s record, in public statements as well as lawsuits and other court actions, reflects a history of wildly overinflated claims of actual fraud, while casting routine or isolated errors in voter registration as evidence of larger election malfeasance.
Over the course of Trump’s first term, his subsequent time as a private citizen, and his current second term, he has had many chances to provide evidence of widespread voter fraud or noncitizen voting in court, and he has lost each time. His administration has also filed dozens of lawsuits against state and locally run elections. In these cases, the administration argues the federal government’s authority to investigate and prosecute voter fraud outweighs states’ authority to run elections. In the lawsuits seeking states’ voter registration records, the federal government has lost every case so far.
In the past two years, the Department of Justice and Republican secretaries of state have regularly announced findings of hundreds of thousands of “potential noncitizens” registered to vote. In nearly every single instance, follow-up investigations confirm the number of confirmed noncitizens registered was a tiny fraction of the original claims, with the vast majority being simple mistakes with no evidence of a larger plot.
A DHS spokesperson told CyberScoop that its internal list contains more than 190,000 registered California voters alleged to be “potential noncitizens.” The spokesperson said the list was culled from publicly available state voter registration data, federal databases and “commercial third-party data,” that cross-referenced them “with known aliens in our systems.”
“Our message to aliens who vote in American elections is clear: we will find you, arrest you, and you will face the consequences — including criminal charges and deportation,” the spokesperson said.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the raids.
“190,000 remains the number of potential noncitizens registered to vote in California that DHS asked Secretary Weber to review,” the spokesperson continued. “The 20,000 referenced by DOJ is a subset of registrants that have gone through the manual verification process so far.”
Last week three Democratic senators, including Alex Padilla, D-Calif., wrote to Attorney General Todd Blanche pressing him to commit that the Department of Justice, FBI or other federal law enforcement agencies will not seize live ballots or voting machines during the upcoming midterm elections.
The administration has already carried out federal raids in Georgia and Arizona to seize ballots from the 2020 election, and the senators called out personal efforts “by President Trump directly to DOJ attorneys to influence election-related investigations in California and elsewhere.”
Padilla’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the arrests.
The post DOJ escalates fight for election supremacy with California raids appeared first on CyberScoop.
Election influence campaigns, particularly ones playing out over social media, are a dime a dozen.
Such campaigns – sometimes devised by foreign powers, other times by domestic groups – are often designed to influence the U.S. electorate. Fake accounts and online personas are created, networks of propaganda are disseminated and the campaign seeks to nudge American voters into thinking a certain way.
Mostly, these efforts are known for getting little to no traction with U.S. audiences. But while social media influence campaigns may not be effective, bad actors continue to adapt their coordinated propaganda goals to new tactics and technologies.
Enter AI chatbots, which have become a source of information and truth for many, who consult the tool for feedback and advice on everything from their careers, to their relationships with their family, as well as their politics.
But new research from VisionHeight, an Israeli threat intelligence firm, highlights how AI systems can often serve as more useful marks for influence actors than humans. To wit: someone is setting up networks of hyperlocal websites across at least 14 different states, filled with content meant to influence U.S. races.
These networks include websites with names like “Wolverine State Report” or “Peach State Bulletin.” Each state network usually has between five to six separate sites, some presenting themselves as hard news outlets and others as opinion or editorial sites. The outlets also cite one another, creating a circular network of local credibility.
But the content on these websites does not resemble journalism, or any writing that a human would find coherent or compelling. Rather, they often include text of statements about specific candidates running in local races, directly stating they are the better candidate for a political issue.
Statements like “Candidate X is the stronger choice” for voters who care about housing, taxes or other political issues were repeated hundreds of times on the websites, with slight changes in the language for different political issues. Most notably, they appear to be explicitly written for AI crawlers scraping web traffic, not humans.
“What’s really interesting about this is that the websites themselves and the content is so well built to let’s say optimize the probability for AI crawlers and the model to be influenced by this content,” said Nitsan Daniel, chief technology officer and co-founder of VisionHeight in an interview.
When a user asks an AI chatbot a question, the model will often search the internet for an answer. By creating specific online content providing direct answers to questions like “which candidate in a local race is better on housing affordability” it can essentially train the AI to retrieve that information when responding to queries.
Many media websites will opt to block AI crawlers, but these websites were all configured to specifically allow major U.S. AI companies to scrape their websites.
A blog by VisionHeight published Wednesday said the operation encompassed six states and 37 websites, but Daniel told CyberScoop that they have since discovered the operation spanned at least 14 states and 460 pages of online content.
The states targeted include Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin . At least seven states saw one or more House races targeted, while other sites focused on other races like Secretaries of State, statewide judicial appointments and local offices.
Most of the research focused on AI answers provided through Google search, but Daniel said they had confirmed at least one major AI model, Perplexity, linked to and cited one of the pages, Tarheel State Report, as its first source for an answer.
VisionHeight does not attribute the activity to a particular actor. To Daniel, who is behind the campaign and their ultimate goals are less important than the prospect that this kind of operation is easily reproducible by both foreign and domestic bad actors looking to influence how AI systems answer questions around political races.
“What we’re seeing here is,I think, very nicely demonstrating how the entire world is transitioning to [a new era],” she said. “So if in the previous election you could have seen fake websites aimed at getting people to actually read it, and containing content built to impact what they’re thinking, what we’re seeing here is…now instead of spending time and effort on getting people to read the content, [they’re] getting into their AI and being influenced by that.”
But Daniel’s concerns are broader. Large language models have become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to carry out a range of deceptive activities, such as creating false organizations, websites, as well as deepfake video, audio and imagery at scale.
It appears AI was used to generate much of the infrastructure and content used in the operation as well. All 37 websites VisionHeight identified in their first analysis, spanning multiple states, were registered in a single evening, and 36 were registered within an 8 minute timeframe. On Sept. 30, the network published “roughly 100,000 words of candidate content” all using the same template and layouts.
Foreign and domestic actors can easily replicate this process, generating hyperlocal propaganda that shapes what AI chatbots say in response to political questions. Experts say chatbots have improved at avoiding false election information, but they remain vulnerable to manipulation and errors that make them unsuited to providing more complex answers around politics.
Whereas in the past a foreign actor might lack the budget, time and incentive to target small elections, AI tools now allow for such operations to be created and optimized at scale within days. Domestic actors, meanwhile, could potentially pair the same tactics with a more sophisticated understanding of how to influence American audiences.
“It really demonstrates how in general using AI just makes what was in the past small targets [more attainable], Daniel said. “People could think that the odds of them being hit, being manipulated or being attacked are just lower because people will not put all their energy and resources on that. Nowadays, because it is so much easier, we’re seeing influence operations and cyber attacks hitting small, medium businesses as well as smaller communities, like in this case.”
The post The next election influence campaign will target your AI chatbot appeared first on CyberScoop.
OSS Scanner sends unreviewed, model-generated vulnerability reports to open source maintainers that opt in.
The post Anthropic Fast-Tracks AI Bug Reports to OSS Maintainers, Taps 11 Firms for OT Security appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that states may use the federal SAVE database to verify voter citizenship, reversing lower court decisions that found the database was inaccurate and would likely disenfranchise eligible voters.
In its opinion, the majority wrote that “the Federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters.”
“The District Court’s order thus inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections, the ruling reads. “Under these circumstances, the equities weigh in favor of a stay.”
The Department of Homeland Security initially designed the SAVE database to determine benefit eligibility for immigrants and to track applicants pursuing U.S. citizenship. Under the Trump administration, it had been repurposed to screen voters for citizenship. Critics say the tool is outdated, often inaccurate and poses a significant risk of wrongly removing eligible voters from rolls.
Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed suit last year. They argued that combining SAVE data with Social Security records violated confidentiality provisions in the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
While the ruling permits states to use the database, adoption remains uncertain. Some conservative states have used SAVE previously, saying it has been helpful in maintaining voter rolls. However, most states have resisted the federal government’s efforts to use citizenship verification systems or wrest control of voter registration efforts away from states. The Trump administration has lost 23 federal court cases in attempts to compel states to share additional data.
Election experts said that the ruling’s impact on 2026 is likely to be limited because of federal laws that bar states from making changes to voter registration within 90 days of an election.
“Given that the SAVE system is used purely as a voluntary system to assist states in keeping their voter lists accurate, states may find this to be a helpful tool to use alongside other mechanisms to keep their lists up to date, even as the Department of Homeland Security itself admits the data is not perfect and evidence suggests the SAVE system has significant flaws,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.
Three justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissented, noting that “without full briefing or oral argument, this Court now grants [a stay]—rendering questionable interim rulings about two statutory provisions it has never before interpreted.”
There are laws and procedures that govern how and when federal systems are changed or modified. In this case, DHS did not create a legally mandated system of records notice (SORN) for the SAVE database outlining the broader impacts of the changes on data privacy. Nor did they engage in or offer a public comment period. Instead, they simply announced in May 2025 that the database was ready for use.
In court, the administration cited the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to justify merging DHS and Social Security data. That argument was rejected by lower courts, and dissenters argued that the Supreme Court majority overturned those rulings without deliberation about whether the administration’s legal reasoning was sound.
“The majority thus treats [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act] as essentially overriding the limits that privacy laws impose on the sharing of citizenship information with DHS. But that ‘back-of-the-napkin assessment,’ is implausible,” wrote Jackson.
The post Supreme Court permits states to use SAVE database for citizenship checks appeared first on CyberScoop.
The Supreme Court has rejected a petition by the Trump administration to implement changes to the way the U.S. Postal Service handles mail-in ballots for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”
The 7-2 decision was handed down Monday with little explanation by the court. Writing for the majority, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson said the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction” and had failed to articulate a valid reason for seeking emergency relief from the court.
However, in a concurring statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he believed there was “a fair prospect” that the final USPS final regulation would be within their legal authority and appeared to cite unreasonably short timelines imposed on states and his primary reason for denying the stay.
“But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections,” wrote Kavanaugh.
The executive order would have tasked the USPS with verifying voter citizenship and the validating ballot materials. The order would have created a barcode tracking system for mail ballot envelopes and “State Citizenship Lists” compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.
The order was quickly challenged by states and voting rights organizations, who argued the executive branch had no constitutional authority to dictate how they maintained their voter rolls.
The White House has justified the order by claiming the federal government has “an unavoidable duty” under Article II of the Constitution to maintain confidence in election outcomes by preventing violations of criminal law, including noncitizen voting.
Lower courts disagreed, blocking the executive order from being put in place before November. The petition to the Supreme Court represented the administration’s best and final hope for judicial relief.
As the administration fought the matter in courts, it moved ahead finalizing the USPS rule. A whistleblower complaint alleged that a “rushed” effort by the White House and U.S. Postal Service to install three new restrictive IT systems meant to verify citizenship that could potentially deny thousands of mail-in ballots if the federal government disagrees with states on a voter or ballot’s eligibility.
While Jackson and Kavanaugh’s rationale took up less than half a page, a dissenting opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and signed by Justice Clarence Thomas was more than 7 pages long.
Alito wrote that he would have granted the Trump administration their request for a stay, allowing the order to be implemented in time for the 2026 elections. He said states and organizations suing the government lacked standing, and dismissed their concerns that implementing the USPS order ahead of the 2026 elections would thwart their ability to educate voters about mail-in voting, calling them “abstract social interests.”
Ahead of the decision, David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Integrity and Research, told reporters that he doubted members of the Supreme Court majority “want to own the chaos that would ensure” as the USPS, states and voters attempt to navigate changes put in place just months before elections and after many states have begun sending out ballots that do not comply with the proposed rules.
He also said that it would be in line with previous Supreme Court decisions that have recognized state supremacy when it comes to specific election administration authorities, like where and how their citizens vote.
“When they consider issues related to the administration of elections, the casting and counting of ballots, they have sided with the states every time,” said Becker.
The post Supreme Court denies Trump request to allow USPS mail ballot changes appeared first on CyberScoop.
Tina Peters, the former Mesa County election clerk convicted of seven felonies related to the theft of voting machine software, said Tuesday through her attorney that she won’t accept a formal position overseeing elections in Shasta County, Calif.
Last month, Shasta County registrar of voters Clint Curtis said he intended to hire Peters as assistant registrar to help with the 2026 elections, just months after her prison sentence was cut short by a commutation from Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.
Later, in an interview with CyberScoop, Curtis said he intended to hire Peters as an outside consultant without access to sensitive county election systems. He also said Peters hadn’t yet accepted the position.
At the time, Peters’ attorney, Peter Ticktin, pointed CyberScoop to a statement indicating Peters’ interest in helping the county. On Tuesday, he sent a new statement from Peters that backed away from a formal job role.
“Let me be clear: I have not accepted any position with the Shasta County Elections Office,” the statement said. “There have been discussions about ways I might assist with election integrity and ballot-authenticity efforts, but no formal role has been accepted.”
Peters went on to say her concerns extended beyond Shasta County, to “all 3,114” counties in America and “whether every citizen can trust that our elections are free, fair and transparent.”
The prospective hiring of Peters sparked a backlash, including from Shasta County’s Board of Supervisors, which had just formally censured Curtis for allegedly abusive verbal behavior toward staff, and from Democratic politicians statewide. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office told CyberScoop it was monitoring the county’s elections for compliance with state and federal laws.
Peters blamed the media for portraying her as a threat to elections, saying she remains “committed to lawful, transparent election integrity efforts that protect the vote of every American citizen.”
“The media continues to mischaracterize my case with words like ‘breaching,’ ‘tampering,’ and similar claims,” Peters said. “My charges were not for changing votes, altering election results, or manipulating any election outcome. Those words are used to create a false impression and distract from the real issue: whether the American people have transparent, verifiable elections they can trust.”
Peters broke into Mesa County’s election office to prove voting machines had shifted votes to Democrat Joe Biden, but data instead confirmed the county’s 2020 vote totals were accurate. Before her release, Peters at one point expressed written regret to the state for her crimes.
Despite that, on Tuesday Peters again endorsed the idea that all electronic voting machines are untrustworthy, and any elections using them as inherently suspect.
Experts have long said that vulnerabilities exist in U.S. voting machines, but certain longstanding practices, like backup paper ballots, post-election, risk-limiting audits, and relying on decentralized equipment and vendors can also manage risks and catch anomalies. According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, nearly 98% of Americans vote on electronic voting machines with paper backups.
Despite a years-long effort and dozens of court challenges, neither Peters nor other Trump allies have ever provided credible proof that manipulation of U.S. voting machines, voter fraud or other problems impacted the 2020 presidential election.
The post Tina Peters, through attorney, backs off formal role in Shasta County elections appeared first on CyberScoop.
A newly released whistleblower complaint reveals details about the “rushed” effort by the Trump administration and U.S. Postal Service to install three new restrictive IT systems that would potentially deny thousands of mail-in ballots, if the federal government disagrees on their eligibility.
According to the complaint, written by attorneys at the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid and released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the individual is a federal employee with “direct knowledge of potentially catastrophic problems” related to USPS’ handling of mail-in ballots for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.
The person claims that USPS is deploying entirely “new and untested” IT systems, including a new Federal Ballot Mail Portal that would potentially give USPS more control over whether and when voters receive federal mail ballots.
The disclosure describes the portal and other systems as “new IT systems and corresponding protocols [that] will govern the delivery of ballots to voters as soon as the 2026 mid-term federal elections and beyond.” It calls the development process “secretive, rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed,” and part of a larger effort by agency leaders to rush implementation of the system ahead of the 2026 elections.
That rush has forced USPS to forgo much of the pre-release testing of those systems to ensure they work as intended and can safely interoperate with other federal systems. As a result, the whistleblower says the portal is so restrictive it can potentially reject large batches of mail-in ballots based on a single identified ballot error.
According to the letter, there are three primary new IT systems USPS is rolling out this election cycle. The Federal Ballot Mail Portal stores both voter names and newly placed ballot barcodes, while a new verification system will compare ballot batch manifests with information in the portal. A third system is described as a new physical barcode sampling verification standard “with a zero percent failure rate.”
“The Whistleblower paints a dire picture of a slapdash software development process as the USPS attempted to create this complex IT system, with multiple points of ballot review, in a matter of weeks,” the letter said. “The very manner in which the project is being developed deviates dangerously from even the most basic software development best practices.”
In all three cases, the onus is explicitly placed on state election officials to resolve discrepancies between federal and state systems.
For example, when the federal government and election officials have different data on batch manifests, which can include tens of thousands of ballots, “election officials will be responsible for resolving any errors purportedly identified in the scan, and for resubmitting the batch manifest – USPS will refuse to accept the ballot batch until the errors are resolved.”
A similarly restrictive approach is described for verifying ballot bar codes.
“As presently designed, if even one bar code on one single ballot in a bulk-mailing of 10,000 ballots fails to properly scan during the verification process, the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state – effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters,” the letter stated.
But the whistleblower said those kinds of small errors are likely to happen in any process that relies on scanning barcodes. In this case, the rushed development and specific location of the barcodes on federal mail ballots means the portal “will almost certainly have significant operating problems.”
The letter says the whistleblower is aware of concerns “among those whose job it is to build this software” that the project is not subject to standard testing and debugging work, and that the systems were escalated to other testing environments before they were even finished. It also claims that the systems’ development was siloed across different teams, with no time to test different software components individually or the system as a whole.
The whistleblower also claims that the USPS rule changes, which have been subject to multiple court injunctions, have continued throughout, in violation of federal court orders. Despite those orders, the agency is believed to have started work on the IT systems in June 2026.
In response, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform led by Robert Garcia, D-Calif., wrote to Postmaster General David Steiner saying the disclosures indicate the new IT systems are “faulty” and demanding USPS “immediately cease implementation of this irresponsible and illegal scheme.”
“To be clear, any actions taken by the Postal Service that prevent any registered voter, let alone millions, from voting are unacceptable, a violation of Americans’ voting rights, and likely illegal,” the members wrote.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the disclosures could potentially lead to new lawsuits against USPS and the federal government.
“This seems to confirm that the USPS is totally unprepared and unqualified to take on this vast responsibility interjecting itself into state’s mail voting processes,” said Becker on Bluesky. “And could incur liability if USPS truly plans to reject thousands of ballots if there’s even one error.”
The post Whistleblower says USPS deploying new, ‘untested’ IT systems governing mail-in ballots appeared first on CyberScoop.
The top election official for Shasta County, Calif. said he has offered convicted felon and former Mesa County, Colo. clerk Tina Peters a position as a consultant to help with the 2026 elections, but that she hasn’t accepted the position yet.
Earlier this month, Shasta County registrar Clint Curtis told local news outlets that he intended to hire Peters as assistant registrar of voters to help with the upcoming 2026 elections, months after she was released from prison in Colorado.
In an interview with CyberScoop this week, Curtis said he was looking to hire Peters as a consultant, citing the length of time involved in hiring her as a full-time employee and the need for immediate help running the upcoming midterm elections.
Curtis said that he initially believed Peters had accepted the position, only to later hear from her that she needed to consult her legal team after her prison sentence was commuted in June.
“She’s got to check it all out, make sure it’s okay, make sure there’s not any roadblocks in there that we don’t know about [or are] illegal, so you got to walk through the whole mess,” said Curtis.
A Colorado Department of Corrections official told CyberScoop that as part of her parole conditions, Peters must be employed and live in Colorado. Peters can request a transfer to another state, but she must first receive permission from both states and go through a formal review process.
According to Curtis, hiring Peters as a consultant means she would not have local access to county email or election systems. Peters’ past conviction “doesn’t matter” because her access to county IT would be limited.
“If she’s on staff she’d have logins to the network, logins in the system, she’d basically have full access,” Curtis said in a phone interview. “But consultants don’t have any of that, nor should they, right?”
Consultants “are basically there to actually watch other people do it and make sure they do it right rather than do it themselves,” he added.
At the same time, when asked what responsibilities Peters would have, Curtis described an expansive role, with Peters helping him oversee the registrar’s office and direct his full-time staff of about 12.
Asked what drew him to Peters, Curtis said “well, she’s out [of prison] and I have this position become available [and] I need somebody that can actually supervise and knows something about elections.”
In 2024, Peters was convicted of seven felony crimes related to the theft of voting machine software from Mesa County election facilities, in a failed attempt to prove that the machines had been involved in election fraud during the 2020 election.
She served less than two years of that sentence, as legal appeals, relentless pressure from the Trump administration and eventually a commutation by Colorado Governor Jared Polis saw her released from prison in June.
Curtis said he did not reach out to any Mesa County officials before offering Peters the job, but did cite conversations with her that impressed him and his confidence that he would remain in control of the county’s elections.
“I talked to her and basically, she’s very even tempered, she’s not wild and crazy which is good,” said Curtis. “And so basically I’d still be in charge so it wouldn’t really be a problem…there’s no way she would get out of bounds on me.”
A request to Mesa County’s press office seeking comment was not returned. At Peters’ sentencing hearing in 2024, multiple Mesa County officials testified about the negative impact her crimes and behavior had on the county’s elections, finances and reputation.
When reached for comment, a representative for Peter Ticktin, Peters’ lawyer, provided CyberScoop with a statement from last week regarding Peters’ intentions.
“Tina Peters is giving consideration to helping in the efforts in Shasta County as there most definitely has been monkey business in the way the election was handled,” Ticktin said. “Tina is one of the key voices leading the effort to get the invasive machines out of our election process.”
Earlier this month, Curtis was censured by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors following investigations into allegations of verbal abuse and threatening language to staff.
Curtis, who was appointed county registrar in 2025, also made a number of claims about what he called suspicious mail-in ballots used during the 2024 election. He claimed the ballots were different sizes and looked, felt and “smelled” different from normal mail-in ballots.
Curtis told CyberScoop he did not follow up with the county’s ballot manufacturer to ask if there was a credible explanation, saying he lacked investigative authority to do so. He also could not answer how many instances of voter fraud his office had confirmed.
A day after speaking with CyberScoop, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors said Curtis’ claims were “frivolous” and that they “welcomed” investigations by state and federal authorities.
“Mr. Curtis was hired to enhance transparency, strengthen election integrity and restore trust. While some progress has been achieved, including the promotion of meaningful observation within the Elections Office, Mr. Curtis has failed significantly in other core responsibilities, undermining the very principles he was appointed to uphold.”
The press office for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s told CyberScoop that irrespective of whom a county employs or contracts with, they must comply with California law, security and confidentiality requirements, and “maintain the integrity of our state’s elections and election processes.”
Weber also sharply questioned Peters’ involvement in California elections.
“As Secretary Weber has stated, ‘The mere thought of letting someone near any part of California’s elections when that person was convicted of serious election-related crimes while serving as an election official, is simply outrageous,’” Weber’s office wrote in an email. “Our office is monitoring the situation and, as always, will act within our authority and work closely with law enforcement officials to ensure that all elections in our state remain transparent, safe, and fair for all eligible voters.”
Curtis expressed frustration to CyberScoop at the delays, saying he needed immediate help and expressing concern that Peters’ legal roadblocks may make it harder to hire her at all.
“You know, if they stall sufficiently enough, then she won’t be able to get any help to me,” said Curtis. “So I need her fairly quickly. We start early voting in…30 days, something like that. So we need it quickly, we need to get her in here, tell her what to do, set people up and get it ready to go. Otherwise, I have to do it all, and that’s going to be a pain.”
The post Election official says Tina Peters would be consultant, won’t have access to election systems appeared first on CyberScoop.
Login