Posing as the legitimate sorted-btree package, indexed-btree hides a malware trigger in its prototype method.
The post Malicious B-tree NPM Package Accumulates Millions of Downloads appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Join SecurityWeek today for a virtual summit exploring the strategies and tools organizations need to discover, prioritize, and defend their expanding attack surfaces.
The post Virtual Event Today: Attack Surface Management Summit appeared first on SecurityWeek.
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.
Tracked as CVE-2026-32475 (CVSS score of 9.8), the bug described as an arbitrary file upload issue in the function that handles form submissions.
The post Elementor Pro WordPress Plugin Vulnerability Exploited to Hack Sites appeared first on SecurityWeek.
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.
As AI dramatically shortens the time from vulnerability disclosure to exploitation, enterprises must look beyond patching to reduce application risk.
The post Rethinking Application Security for the AI Era appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The Supreme Court dismissed one of two lawsuits blocking the Trump administration from implementing changes to U.S. Postal Service regulations regarding mail-in ballots, saying that states lacked standing because they could not prove that the regulations would cause “concrete harm.”
California and 23 other states sued the federal government after a White House executive order directed USPS to begin creating “State Citizenship Lists” for each state, consisting of voters who, according to federal data, are eligible to receive mail-in ballots.
The order states that the lists will be updated and transmitted to states 60 days before the election, and states that “An individual’s identification on the State Citizenship List does not indicate that the individual has been properly registered to vote in the State” and that “there may be State laws, not reflected in the State Citizenship List, that preclude voter registration, or the individual may choose not to be registered.”
That provision was thrown out by two federal courts, who found them unconstitutional and likely to result in the federal government intruding on the constitutional rights of states to run their elections.
But the Supreme Court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that states have no standing to sue because “The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies” and the order “neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the executive branch.”
Because the section of the order is prefaced to say that the Secretary of Homeland Security will transmit the lists “to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law,” the majority said the claims of harm by states are, at this point, entirely speculative.
“The true ‘source of any injury’ to the States would be the downstream action that the Secretary ‘might take in the future’ to implement” the USPS sections,” the court wrote. “Emphasis on might.”
At the same time, another section directs the Department of Justice to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local election officials who “knowingly” allow instances of non-citizen voting.
The majority argued the DOJ directive was internal guidance that neither regulated states’ voter registration nor limited states’ authority to set their own election rules. Since it only prioritized enforcement of existing laws, the court said it did “nothing” to states.
“The States lack standing to challenge for much the same reason: It does nothing to them,” the majority wrote. “This provision directs the Attorney General to ‘prioritize’ the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters.”
The USPS regulations remain blocked under a separate injunction issued by federal court in Massachusetts, but the ruling demonstrates there are major differences between the Supreme Court majority and lower federal courts on the Trump administration’s years-long effort to assert more federal control over elections. On Friday, USPS moved to finalize the new regulations despite the nationwide injunction.
The three remaining liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Kentaji Brown Jackson – laid out their opposition to the ruling across two dissenting opinions. In one, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote that the majority’s decision “merely postpones adjudication” and does not address or rule in favor of the administration on many substantive constitutional questions.
Both would have granted relief to the states, writing that “a commonsense reading of the executive order, corroborated by the government’s own representations, make clear that the respondent states face a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury.”
Sotomayor also expressed incredulity at the majority’s view that the order’s sections on USPS state citizenship lists and directing DOJ to prosecute election officials were unrelated or nonthreatening.
“To pretend that the lists assembled [in one section] bear no relation to the prosecutions directed by [the second section] is to ignore the structure of the Executive Order and the Government’s words alike,” she wrote. “As this Court has long recognized, ‘[p]eople do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.”
Justice Jackson, in her own dissent, was even blunter.
“The District Court held that the President’s Order is unlawful, the Government does not defend the lawfulness of the Order before this Court, and no judge or Justice has held (or holds today) that the Order comports with the Constitution,” wrote Jackson. “Still, the Court sees fit to grant the Government equitable relief to proceed with implementing the challenged Order on the grounds that, because the Government had not yet issued a final rule at the time the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff States lacked a concrete injury for Article III purposes.”
The post SCOTUS tosses one of two injunctions against Trump USPS mail-in ballot rules appeared first on CyberScoop.
In a late Friday night posting to the Federal Register, the U.S. Postal Service said it is finalizing new regulations that would give the federal government potentially vast powers to control mail-in ballots for voters.
The changes are part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, which directed USPS to develop lists of residents “eligible” for mail-in voting — standards that would be defined by the federal government.
The U.S. Constitution vests states and Congress with the power to regulate elections, and the USPS rules have already been struck down by multiple lower courts. But as the White House appeals to the Supreme Court to reverse those decisions, it is still moving ahead in finalizing the regulations, though USPS says it will not move to implement them until after the Supreme Court rules.
But USPS said it must begin moving forward now in order to ensure the changes are in place by the mid-term elections.
“To ensure the faithful execution of federal law in connection with federal elections, this rule has an immediate effective date,” USPS wrote. “Delaying the effective date would jeopardize implementation of this rule in time for the 2026 general election, which will be held on November 3, 2026.”
According to the notice, USPS has received an astonishing 200,000 comments from the public in response to the proposed rule. It doesn’t provide a breakdown of how many comments were in support or opposition.
By the agency’s own admission, the vast majority of supportive comments appear to argue that the rules would help with the perception among voters that fraud is a “significant problem.” Phrases like “strengthens confidence” and “reduce uncertainty” are peppered throughout the descriptions.
But no credible evidence of coordinated mail-in voter fraud is presented, and Trump and his allies have been the primary force in American politics spreading the perception that voter fraud by noncitizens, dead people and Democrats is rampant. Courts, post-election audits and independent experts have repeatedly debunked these arguments.
“Whether or not voter fraud is common or uncommon, the Postal Service has the legal authority to take the measures in this rule to facilitate enforcement of federal law, reduce the risk of fraud, and help protect the integrity of federal elections,” the notice stated.
According to the notice, the comments in opposition pointed out that two courts have already blocked the White House’s USPS rules, finding them unconstitutional. Others expressed concerns that the Postal Service “would refuse to accept certain ballots for federal elections that states tender without satisfying the data-entry obligations that the rule would impose,” echoing concerns that election experts have conveyed to CyberScoop in interviews.
The notice also dismisses comments “influenced by partisan political speculation,” that include “conjecture about the underlying intent” of the order, its impact on voter turnout and elections.
“Such remarks are speculative and exceed the scope of this proceeding,” USPS wrote in its notice. “In any event … this rule does not—nor is it intended to—facilitate any form of voter suppression, affect election outcomes, or target particular demographics, districts, or states.”
Last week the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, which ruled against the administration’s USPS order in an ongoing lawsuit brought by states and voter groups, took the unusual step of issuing a second, separate injunction against the USPS rules. It’s not clear whether the Supreme Court will address both injunctions in the same ruling or separately ahead of election day in November.
“The court has already answered and will again resolve the question clearly and affirmatively,” Judge Indira Talwani wrote when issuing the second injunction. “The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections.”
Some voting groups quickly moved to condemn the Friday night posting, saying it will confuse voters about a state-led voting process that is, as of today, still the law of the land.
“For the 2026 election, voters can continue to rely on the voting rules established by their state unless and until a court orders otherwise,” said Michael McNulty, senior policy director at the nonprofit Issue One. “Yet, because the Trump administration continues its attempts to undermine trust in an effort to centralize control of elections, we all must remain vigilant and continue to build trust in our election system.”
The post Postal Service moves to finalize mail ballot regs before SCOTUS ruling appeared first on CyberScoop.
CodeSecCon is the premier virtual event bringing together developers and cybersecurity professionals to revolutionize the way applications are built, secured, and maintained.
The post Virtual Event Today: CodeSecCon – Secure Your Code and Applications appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Clint Curtis, the registrar for voters in Shasta County, Calif. said he plans to hire convicted felon and election denialist Tina Peters as one of his top deputies.
Curtis said he plans to hire Peters next month as an assistant registrar, according to local news outlets, which cited text exchanges with Curtis.
CyberScoop has reached out to Shasta County’s elections office for comment.
If Peters is hired, it would represent a marriage between a conspiracy-minded election official from another state and an equally distrusting electorate.
Donald Trump won Shasta County approximately two-thirds of voters in the county in all three presidential elections dating back to 2016. Its conservative residents have adopted Trump’s rhetoric that election fraud, voting machine hacks, noncitizen voting and other problems plagued the system, and have turned their anger at local officials.
Cathy Darling Allen, Shasta County’s former registrar of voters, told CyberScoop in 2024 that she retired after decades of administering elections in the county due to persistent attacks and harassment from voters who embraced baseless election fraud conspiracy theories.
Peters, a former Mesa County, Colo. election official, had been serving a 9-year sentence for seven felonies, including identity theft, breaking into an election office, disabling surveillance cameras, and stealing voting system software.
Peters’ prosecutor, Colorado’s state clemency advisory board, and Mesa County officials have all defended her sentence and described her as entirely unrepentant for her crimes.
Election experts have called Peters’ theft of voting system software one of the most serious breaches of election systems in history. She shared the stolen code with conservative activists, and the code eventually surfaced online.
Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, commuted Peters’ sentence earlier this year, citing pressure from the Trump administration and arguing that her punishment violated her First Amendment rights. In doing so, Polis intervened before an appeals court could decide whether Peters deserved a reduced sentence.
“She may continue making claims about elections that I believe are false,” Polis wrote in a May Substack post defending the decision. “She may continue promoting ideas that I strongly disagree with. I hope she doesn’t. But in America, people are not sent to prison for expressing political views, however misguided those views may be.”
In response to questions about Peters, Polis’ press office referred CyberScoop to the Colorado Department of Corrections.
Department of Corrections spokesperson Alondra Gonzalez told CyberScoop in an email that as part of her parole conditions, Peters is required to get a job or participate in a full time educational or vocational program and reside in Colorado. Parolees can request to transfer to another state, but those requests would be subject to rules and procedures under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and require approval from both states.
Gonzalez told CyberScoop that the department has not received a request for an interstate transfer from Peters at this time.
The Shasta County board of supervisors formally censured Curtis earlier this month following investigations by the county and outside consultant firm The Oppenheimer Group found he was verbally abusive or physically threatening toward staff.
At an Aug. 11 public meeting, Shasta County Supervisor Matt Plummer cited more than 700 pages of evidence and more than half a dozen eyewitnesses.
The investigations included claims that Curtis at times threatened to “punch,” “slap in the face,” “kill” or “execute” his subordinates. Another claim alleges Curtis once threatened to remove a door where an employee was allegedly hiding from him and have the person pulled out by their hair.
Plummer prefaced his comments by saying the board’s action is “not about election integrity” and that Curtis retains all of his authority to carry out budgeted election administration for the county.
“This is about determining when a department head allegedly and through two investigations, has substantiated allegations of violating personnel codes, the codes that guide how we as a county intend to interact with our employees, what do we do about it?” Plummer said.
Senators Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to express their “grave concern” over the possibility that Peters would have access to state election systems.
“If Shasta County puts Ms. Peters in a position to again violate election laws following her convictions, county taxpayers could be burdened with unwelcomed and potentially hefty expenses,” Padilla and Schiff wrote. “If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of…state or federal election law.”
The post A California county wants to hire Tina Peters to help run its elections appeared first on CyberScoop.
A federal judge has issued a second injunction preventing the United States Postal Service from carrying out President Donald Trump’s executive order focused on mail-in voting.
Judge Indira Talwani had previously ruled that the White House order, which would have essentially placed the federal government in charge of deciding which voters in each state would receive mail-in ballots, was unconstitutional.
The order was part of an ongoing lawsuit between the federal government and 23 states over the order’s legality. The Trump administration has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and reverse the decision.
In a new ruling issued Tuesday, Talwani’s said the court “finds it prudent to review the EO now, where less than 90 days pend before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November.”
“As to those elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, the court preserves the current electoral status quo, grants the Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion…enjoins the USPS’s implementation of Section 3 of the EO,” Talwani wrote.
The opinion concluded that the states “are likely to succeed on the merits” in claiming that Section 3 of the executive order violates constitutional separation of powers, and noted that the federal government’s “sole attempts to grapple with the actual merits of Plaintiff Organizations’ constitutional challenge are their briefly presented unitary executive arguments.”
But Talwani wrote that whether the president has ultimate authority over USPS actions is irrelevant if it results in a “facially unconstitutional” act.
“Instead, the court need only determine whether the EO is facially unconstitutional based on the substance of the text’s directives,” the opinion said. “The court has already answered and will again resolve the question clearly and affirmatively. The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections.”
The post Federal judge issues second order blocking Trump mail-in voting directive appeared first on CyberScoop.
Like seemingly everything else these days, artificial intelligence will re-shape the way voters gather information on candidates running in the 2026 midterm elections.
In some ways, this is already the reality. Voters are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for information instead of Google. Political campaigns are deploying deepfakes of their opponents. And AI systems have been developed to carry out increasingly complex hacks.
Since the last major U.S. election in 2024, major tech companies have embedded AI into their products while hundreds of millions of people have adopted the tools, either by purchasing subscriptions to commercial models or using open-source models. Yet both research and experts state that while AI systems have gotten better at handling basic facts, they’re nowhere near reliable enough to be a main source of accurate or complete information.
While chatbots are becoming a primary way that voters gather information on local races, candidates, issues, and voting information, they are not substitutes for more authoritative sources, like a voter’s state or local election office.
“I think this is one of the first elections we’re seeing…where AI is just everywhere,” said Thania Sanchez, senior vice president of research and analytics at the nonprofit States United Democracy Center. “Even if you just Google it, [now] the first thing that comes up is the AI overview.”
While AI companies have worked to cut down on errors in their model’s responses for questions around basic election information, they continue to fall short in important ways.
In new research shared exclusively with CyberScoop ahead of its release, States United Democracy Center tested two of the most popular tools — OpenAI’s ChatGPT’s free tier and the AI interface used alongside Google Search — for their performance on a series of basic questions around elections, such as how to register to vote, or a list of candidates in a race.
The models were chosen because they are free and easy to access. For Google AI, the nonprofit tested two types of accounts: ones running in Incognito Mode and ones that had a history of browsing election-skeptical websites.
The nonprofit ran two rounds of testing in 2025 and 2026, collecting nearly one thousand responses from the models submitted by users across six swing states (Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
In 2025 tests, 6.9% of responses from Google AI and 8.2% responses from ChatGPT“contained verifiable factual errors,” like not listing the correct candidates in a race or false guidance around polling site locations.
However, follow up tests in 2026 across Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan found that the error rates in both models had dropped to zero. The study notes that “this is real progress and should be acknowledged.”
But underneath those topline numbers, a more murky picture emerges around the tools’ reliability.
An AI response can sound accurate without actually being complete. To wit: ChatGPT provided incomplete lists of current gubernatorial primary race candidates 88.9% of the time when queried.
Linking to a state election website – an output the study considers the single most important measure of voter utility — happened less than 40% of the time. Whether due to formatting issues or the model ingesting outdated information, it’s a problem if voters use them as their primary information source for elections.
“It will be like ‘this person is the Republican candidate and this person is the Democratic candidate’ but it is not telling you there’s also these other third-party candidates,” said Sanchez. “It’s not giving you complete information, so the voter thinks these are the [only] two people running.”
A June survey from the Pew Research Center found that about half of U.S. adults reported having used chatbots at least once, up from a third in 2024, while a quarter reported using them daily. The top use case listed for engaging with the chatbot was searching for information.
Isabel Linzer, an elections policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberScoop that voters, campaigns and governments alike are using AI more freely and with fewer restrictions.
Bad actors in the information space have followed suit, and “we are in a phase now of generative engine optimization” where information operations are structured to rank higher in AI model responses.
“We’ve moved beyond [SEO] to [Generative Engine Optimization], and that’s where we’re seeing campaigns thinking about how to structure their materials to make sure that they are in a format that AI models want to use when they’re searching the web…to develop their responses to user queries,” she said.
There is also the underlying problem of frontier AI companies constantly tinkering with their models, their algorithms and the technologies they are intertwined with. . Election officials, by contrast, have decades of experience educating voters about their options.
A prime example of this churn occurred this past February, in between the first and second round of the study, when Google AI suddenly shifted to providing only links for election related queries in incognito mode, replacing the written summaries that showed up in the first round.
Like the study’s authors, Linzer said most people are still best served by going directly to local sources for accurate information on elections. With issues like ideological bias, the potential for bespoke or sycophantic answers for each user based on their prior chat histories and lack of predictability, voters should still be very careful about using AI chatbots as political truth machines.
The best thing that tech companies can do to educate voters is “making sure that for high-stakes situations like elections, that chats are connecting directly to the most important sources, like the website where you can actually register to vote,” said Linzer.
The post AI is getting better at election facts, but voters shouldn’t rely on it appeared first on CyberScoop.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let it enforce an executive order that would restrict mail-in voting, after a federal appeals court kept the order blocked in nearly half the states just months before the November midterm elections.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a Massachusetts federal judge acted too soon when she struck down key parts of the order, which blocked federal agencies from carrying it out in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Sauer said the order only directs agencies to study changes and has not yet produced a final rule, so no state has suffered harm.
“The district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” he wrote. He asked the court to pause the injunction while the case moves through the appeals court, and to grant an immediate stay in the meantime.
President Donald Trump signed an order in March that directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state and send them to election officials, along with directing the U.S. Postal Service to draft rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued three days after Trump signed the order, arguing the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, power over elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in June that the administration lacked power to build its own citizen-voter database and that the Postal Service could not impose new rules on states’ mail ballots by itself. She also found the order’s enforcement language amounted to an improper threat against local election officials.
In Monday’s filing, the administration leaned on a 2020 case, Trump v. New York, in which the justices threw out a challenge to a separate Trump order on census counts because it was too soon to know how agencies would carry it out. Sauer argued the same logic applies here. The order tells agencies to act only “to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.” That wording, he said, means the Postal Service and Homeland Security could still drop or narrow the changes once they finish reviewing public comments and checking what the law allows.
The filing follows a string of fights over how the 2026 midterms will run. Earlier this month, Trump gave a prime-time address reviving his claim that the 2020 election was rigged, this time pointing to China, without providing any new evidence.
The filing also follows a Supreme Court ruling in late June that let states keep counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if postmarked on time.
You can read the full filing below.
The post Trump asks Supreme Court to let him curtail mail-in voting ahead of midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.
An annual spy policy bill would authorize a cyberthreat intelligence sharing pilot program for state and local governments, and order an outside assessment of how intelligence agencies are currently sharing that information with those jurisdictions.
The House Intelligence Committee approved fiscal 2027 intelligence authorization legislation Monday that also includes provisions on election security and that are meant to boost intelligence community (IC) usage of artificial intelligence for cyber and other purposes.
The measure’s language on state and local information sharing come amid widespread frustration with Trump administration cutbacks on such aid from the federal government, with the president taking explicit action to shift more responsibility for cyber defenses to the local level.
Under the pilot program, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would pick one state to receive monthly briefings from the ODNI, Department of Homeland Security, FBI and others to receive monthly briefings on “timely, specific, and actionable information regarding cyber threats” in unclassified form. After a year, the ODNI would then provide a report on the viability of a wider briefing program for state and local governments.
The bill requires the ODNI to produce a strategy on information sharing with states and local areas, and would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct an assessment of the state of such sharing now, including a summary of relevant agencies’ current efforts, how the agencies deconflict those efforts and what kind of obstacles security clearances pose to improving information sharing.
Trump’s pick to serve as DNI, Jay Clayton, emphasized his desire to focus on cyber threat information sharing as part of his Senate vetting last week, but some in the GOP are also pushing to significantly reduce the size of his office.
National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross has also talked about creating pilot programs for cyber threat information sharing with state and local governments, but there’s been little movement on that initiative.
During committee deliberation, panel Democrats won adoption of a trio of election security amendments.
An amendment from the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, would require the intelligence community to publish an unclassified assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the 2026 midterms. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado’s amendment would partially withhold funding for the ODNI until Congress gets overdue reports it had required on the 2024 and 2026 elections. And Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania’s amendment would “protect analysts from retribution by IC leadership for working on intelligence products related to foreign influence in US elections,” according to a news release.
The Democrats’ push arrives shortly after President Donald Trump delivered a primetime address seeking to bolster his long-debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
According to a Republican summary of the bill, it includes provisions for “significantly increasing funding for expanded access and use of frontier AI models for intelligence and cyber missions,” to codify and expand the role of the Artificial Intelligence Security Center at the National Security Agency and strengthen information sharing on AI threats.
“This year’s [bill] balances strong transparency and accountability measures while equipping the IC with the resources needed to combat the ever-evolving threats from our adversaries around the world, with a particularly strong focus on the global AI race,” said House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark.
Another assessment that the bill orders would come from the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy on foreign cyberthreats to critical energy infrastructure, including their intent and risks.
The trend in Congress is for lawmakers to incorporate the annual intelligence authorization bill, or some of its provisions, into the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which often reaches the president’s desk at the end of each calendar year.
The post House intel bill includes provisions on state and local threat intelligence, election security, AI appeared first on CyberScoop.
Login